Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

M1 (Tinsley Viaduct)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the repairs to Tinsley Viaduct on the M1 to be completed.

The Minister for Transport (Dr. John Gilbert): It is expected that the modifications to the upper deck of Tinsley Viaduct carrying the M1 will be completed in spring 1978.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister accept that the expectation in his Department was that the repairs to the whole bridge—not merely the top deck to which he referred—would have been completed by now? Is the delay to be found in the design processes? Does not the Minister think that this delay in restoring the bridge is an undeserved embarrassment to a steel city like Sheffield?

Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there have been delays. They have been as a result of changes in the design proposals, and I shall be happy to write to him if he wishes to have further information. The savings from the refined design for strengthening the bridge will exceed the congestion costs arising during the process of planning and making the repairs.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my hon. Friend aware that even when the Tinsley Viaduct work is completed it will still not be possible to go by the M1 or any other motorway system to the north-east of England because of the absence of the Pudsey-Dishforth link? Will the Minister

say when the whole network will be completed by the building of this link?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend because his area of the North-East is not linked to the national motorway, but he will be aware that because of expenditure constraints it may be some time before we can do all he hopes.

Rail Services

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the effect on British Rail finances of the proposed cuts in rail services; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Gilbert: British Rail is still discussing the proposals with the rail unions and others, so no firm estimate can yet be made, but the Board tells me that the savings should amount to over £3 million in 1976.

Mr. Moate: Is it not clear that these proposals will cause major inconvenience to the public and have a minimal effect on British Rail's mounting losses? I recognise the difficulties of British Rail, but is it not enormously unsatisfactory for such proposals to be carried through with little heed being paid to the views of the public, trade unions and Members of Parliament? Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to have these cuts deferred until adequate consultations have taken place on the overall strategy for British Rail?

Dr. Gilbert: The Railways Board has discussed these cuts with the unions involved and reached agreement with them on measures designed to avoid the need for compulsory redundancies, at least for the next seven months. British Rail is exercising its best commercial judgment on the way in which to make the reductions in services so as to impose the least inconvenience on its passengers. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an overall review of transport strategy and policy is being prepared in my Department. Any comment on it had better wait until it is published.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend referred to the convenience of passengers. Have studies been made of the proportion of expected travellers by the trains that are being cancelled who will either go by


other services or not travel at all? Is it not important that this should be done, so that the effect on the travelling public can be properly gauged before the cuts are confirmed?

Dr. Gilbert:: I do not believe that the inconvenience to the public will be as great as my hon. Friend may surmise. Most of the cuts fall on services with relatively low usage—and that applies even to peak services. On some of the peak services involved about half the seats are unoccupied. I can say with some confidence that many cuts in service will have little impact on the public's travelling needs.

Mr. Fox: Will the Minister accept our congratulations that the White Paper on an overall transport policy is still circulating in his Department? We are desperate to have it before us. Will the Minister say when that is likely to be?

Dr. Gilbert: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we are not yet committed to publishing a White Paper. [Interruption.] We have always made that clear. We are not yet committed to publishing a White Paper, but we expect to publish the results of the study. Whether that will be in the form of a White Paper or a Green Paper remains for decision. These matters involve the Department in a considerable amount of research and a great deal of consultation—which is only at the initial stage—with the unions, operators and various parts of the transport industry. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to produce not a rushed study but a fully comprehensive one.

Mr. Tom McMillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is more desirable to develop the railway services than to cut them back? Is he aware that on 16th December thousands of railwaymen will invade the House to tell him so?

Dr. Gilbert: I am well aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend about the need to preserve as many as possible of the present services and as much as possible of the railway network, but clearly one has to take a view on the size of the deficit. As I have said before at this Box, my concern is that the amount that we are spending on

revenue subsidies is approaching the amount which all my hon. Friends and I would like to put into additional investment in the railways.

Mr. Moate: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about the effects of public expenditure cuts on rail services in Scotland.

Dr. Gilbert: Any cuts in Scottish rail services that may be decided on will be announced by British Rail.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that any cuts in rail investment in Scotland would cause great inconvenience to the public and also have a devastating effect on an integrated transport policy, as well as on matters like road safety, employment prospects for workers in the rail industry, and the conservation of energy? In particular, does my hon. Friend know that in some parts of central Scotland some of the multiple-diesel units operating are 15 years old? Will he consider giving grant aid in order to replace or refurbish these units?

Dr. Gilbert: I take my hon. Friend's point. Some of the considerations that have to be borne in mind in setting investment levels for British Rail have to be determined also in relation to the volume of resources available for investment in transport facilities generally in the country. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, future investment ceilings have already been set for next year, and British Rail has a commitment figure for the year after that. Future ceilings beyond that date will have to await the outcome of the present public expenditure review.

Rate Rebates

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the take-up level of rate rebates.

The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): About 2½ million people received considerable help under the rate rebate scheme with their rates in 1974–75, the latest period


for which figures are available. On the best estimate that I can make, this represents about 70 per cent. of those eligible. I shall not be satisfied until all those eligible receive a rebate.

Mr. Arnold: Is it not the case that the introduction of the scheme has improved the distribution of the unfair burden of local government expenditure only to a limited extent? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come for a definite commitment by the Government to move towards a system that takes account of people's ability to pay? May we have an assurance that the Lay-field Committee will report before the end of the year, as was originally promised?

Mr. Silkin: I attach a great deal of importance to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially about the Layfield Report. It is eagerly awaited by the end of the year, but I hope that I take the House with me when I say it was our duty in the meantime to see that as many people as possible received adequate rate rebates. I think that a 70 per cent. take-up is reasonably high, although I am not totally satisfied. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that the lowest take-up seems to be among private tenants and ratepayers living in quarters combined with commercial premises. I intend to see that publicity is directed towards assisting them.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the House of Lords decision that those householders whose sewerage system is not connected to the main drainage do not have to pay water rates? What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend must be congratulated on being quick off a particular mark, but I need rather more time to consider things than, perhaps, he does.

Mr. Rossi: What does the right hon. Gentleman consider to be the appropriate level of increase in rates for the coming year? Does he think it likely that the increase will be constrained within that limit?

Mr. Silkin: That is a rather different question. One-third of the income that local authorities receive is made up from the rates, and the precise rate level must therefore be left to them. Nevertheless,

they are aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, of the need for constraint, and I am glad to see how well they are co-operating.

Community Land Act

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Environment how many extra civil servants are already being employed both by the national and local governments as a direct result of the Community Land Act.

Mr. John Silkin: No extra staff have been engaged by my Department on account of this legislation. Local authorities have been advised not to consider recruiting extra staff until they have agreed land acquisition management schemes.

Mr. Morrison: No extra staff have been recruited so far, but how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that, as a direct result of the Community Land Act, there is bound to be a substantial increase in the number of public servants with the Prime Minister's recent speech castigating local government for being overstaffed?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, assuming to himself a rather greater knowledge of the effect of the scheme than I have. I shall give him one or two thoughts which he may put into his general interest in this subject, because he has previously asked me a question about local government staffing.
The local goverment staff referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Community Land Act are those to be engaged when the scheme is fully in operation at the end of the transitional period. I have never said, nor am I satisfied, that this necessarily means extra staff. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House at the time, so he bears no responsibility for it, but one of the great achievements of the Conservative Government was to reorganise local government in such a way that, as we pointed out at the time and as has since proved to be the case, there was a wild increase and duplication in the number of skilled staff. I believe that we shall meet this problem more by redeployment than by an increase in staff.

Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to past issues of the Estates Times, to see the way in which the industry itself is looking at the effects of this "Communist Land


Act"? If he has not, I recommend it as soporific bedtime reading. Is he aware that among local authorities there is concern that the Treasury may not make available sufficient money to implement the scheme in the way envisaged when the Bill was introduced? Can my right hon. Friend deny that the only amount of money to be made available will be £25 million?

Mr. Silkin: I have had the greatest support and encouragement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury and the local authorities stand to gain financial benefit from the Act—£4 million back to the community for every £1 million paid out is not a bad deal. The Estates Times is a periodical which, perforce, these days, I read more than The Times, and I note that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) seems to be at variance with the rest of the development and property industry in his view of the Act.

Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Pilcher Report on the commercial development of land says that the Act must mean greater delay and cost? That report has only just been published, although it was finished by 12th August specifically so that it would be available for consideration of the final stages of the Community Land Bill. Why has the report been suppressed until now?

Mr. Silkin: I had better deal with the more serious part of that supplementary question, although I do not see how it relates to the original Question. The Pilcher Report deals with disposals, as the hon. Gentleman will find out when he reads it. Because it deals with disposals, it was more appropriate when the Community Land Bill became an Act. The hon. Gentleman criticises delay. That was not the argument of the Opposition in Committee or on Report, when we were trying to cut down delays in compulsory purchase procedures.

Building (Pre-stressed Structures)

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will pre-stressed structures to lodge design introduce regulations requiring builders of information with local authorities on completion.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We are considering this in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr. Rooker: I am pleased by that reply, because there is great concern in the building industry that, in 50 or 100 years' time, when some of the great monstrosities which have recently been erected are demolished, the removal of certain lintels without knowledge of the stresses involved could bring the whole lot down like a pack of cards. May we have an early statement on the regulations?

Mr. Freeson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We are examining the situation and will come to a conclusion as soon as we can.

Mr. Costain: Does not the question show some ignorance of the Building Regulations? Should stress designs and calculations not be put in before a building is built and not afterwards? Do local councils throw these things away?

Mr. Freeson: That may be taken as a humorous remark.

Mr. Costain: It was not meant to be.

Mr. Freeson: It seems to have caused a good deal of humour, but the Question relates precisely to the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make seriously, namely, the desirability of registering the design and make-up of the structures with the local authorities at the time that they are installed or about to be installed.

National Bus Company

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an inquiry into the financial structure and financial targets of the National Bus Company.

Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir.

Mr. Ovenden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the increases in fares which have been made this year by the National Bus Company are quite out of proportion to the general rate of inflation, and that these increases have imposed great hardship on the least-well-off sections of the community, and will inevitably lead to an accelerated decline in public transport? Does my hon. Friend believe that the


present financial targets of the National Bus Company are consistent with achieving the pledge, in the Labour Party's manifesto, to expand public transport?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. He will recall that the National Bus Company, along with other nationalised industries, has been very active in keeping prices down, as part of successive Governments' counter-inflationary policies. As to where the benefits of the revenue subsidies go, I am sure that my hon. Friend is also aware that more than half of them go to those enjoying more than the average industrial wage, and it is a matter for consideration whether or not that is the best use of what is essentially welfare money.

Mr. Fry: Does the Minister realise that in many parts of the country crisis point is rapidly being reached over bus services, and that many local authorities, quite rightly, are refusing to increase the level of subsidy because his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told them that they must show restraint in local government expenditure? Is it not about time the Minister started to do something about what is becoming a very serious problem indeed, and a deteriorating situation for the National Bus Company?

Dr. Gilbert: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, after the counties first submitted their transport policies and programmes this year the Department invited the counties to raise their bids for bus revenue support. I cannot give the House the details at the moment, because the transport supplementary grant letters have not yet gone out, but I can tell the House that in virtually every case the bids for increased support have been met.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my hon. Friend aware that among the fare increases imposed by the National Bus Company that bear most heavily on people are those in respect of schoolchildren? Will he consider instructing or advising traffic commissioners not to grant such fare increases in the next few months, until his and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has finally made his decision on school transport?

Dr. Gilbert: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion. As he quite

rightly says, these are matters that bear rather more immediately on the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that the crisis in the bus system is at its gravest in the rural areas, where the services have been deteriorating steadily as well as the fares going up sharply? What will the Minister do to break the State monopoly of the National Bus Company, to do away with the traffic commissioner system, and to enable private operators of all kinds to try to serve the community better than does the National Bus Company?

Dr. Gilbert: Let me say straight away that I think that the National Bus Company does an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances.
There is a Question later on on the Order Paper dealing specifically with the problems of public transport in rural areas, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that in allocating the transport supplementary grant this year we have made it quite clear that we propose to change the balance as between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in favour of the latter, so that the support can go principally to maintaining levels of service in country areas rather than holding down fares in metropolitan areas.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware of the feeling in the country about concessionary fare schemes and the way in which they operate in different parts of the country? Will he say why the Government cannot introduce a general concessionary fare applying to all people who qualify?

Dr. Gilbert: This point has been considered and is still being considered in great detail. There are very considerable difficulties involved. In the first place, some of the concessionary fare schemes are so wide-ranging that people can use them without charge even at peak hours, and to extend a scheme of that sort on a national basis would involve enormous cost to public funds. If one did that, one would face the alternative of cutting back on existing schemes or running two schemes in parallel, either of which courses would lead to severe administrative difficulties.

British Railways (Chairman)

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Dr. Gilbert: I meet the Chairman as and when the need arises. My next scheduled meeting with him is on 16th December.

Mr. Crawford: When will the Minister implement the strong recommendation from British Rail that a separate Scottish region of British Rail be established? When will he also announce the granting of £3·3 million to British Rail for the double-tracking of the Perth-Inverness railway line? Is the Minister aware that it is less than half a day's revenue from Scottish oil? Is he further aware that the results of last night's regional council by-elections in Bo'ness and Bishopbriggs indicate that the people of Scotland will not stand for any further cuts in public expenditure?

Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's calculations of the revenue from British oil are thoroughly up to date, but, in relation to the Perth-Inverness line, we have received an appraisal from the Board of various ways of increasing capacity on that line. The Board's traffic scheme would not yield a satisfactory rate of return, and we are considering whether any special arrangement ought to be made to enable the scheme to go ahead.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister state the annual loss in respect of British Rail's Scottish services and give an assurance, bearing in mind the very heavy burden of rates in the west of Scotland, that it is no part of the Government's plan to transfer the loss on the electric trains in the west of Scotland on to the shoulders of the ratepayers in Strathclyde?

Dr. Gilbert: I cannot without notice give the hon. Gentleman the detailed statistics for which he asks, but I shall certainly write to him giving the answer, if I can.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Is not my hon. Friend's concern with all this discussion about the future level of services on British Rail taking place in isolation from

the discussion about the level of bus services and the level of the motorway programme, and so on? Does he not agree that the Labour Party is pledged to a policy of co-ordination and integration of transport, and not to a policy under which each transport mode is discussed in isolation? When are we to have a co-ordinated and integrated transport policy?

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I assure him that these matters are not discussed in isolation. He is well aware of the need for a great deal of fundamental research before a review can be brought forward, and the group in which he played a distinguished part has in some ways laid the foundation stone for the work now being done by the Government on this matter. It is difficult to give a precise date when the results of the review will be published, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are just as impatient as he is to get it published.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: As the Minister is meeting the Chairman of British Rail 10 days before Boxing Day, will he ask the Chairman to reconsider the retrograde decision to cut all rail services on Boxing Day, even if it means charging a premium rate for those who really want to travel on that day?

Dr. Gilbert: May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one minor inexactitude? All services are not being cut on that day. Services are being maintained in Scotland, where Boxing Day is not a public holiday.

Building Societies

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Freeson: As I have previously indicated, I and my Department maintain regular contact with the Building Societies Association over a wide range of subjects.

Mr. McCrindle: What practical help can the Minister offer to those on low incomes or those wishing to buy older properties who now find that the requirements of the building societies for advancing money to them are too stringent? Now that local authority sources


of finance for this purpose have virtually evaporated, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that unless he can induce building societies to relax their lending requirements there will be almost a complete blockage in the purchase of older properties?

Mr. Freeson: I do not accept that there will be a complete blockage, but this is a matter of considerable concern to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are considering this aspect of policy and practice very seriously.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable evidence that building societies are imposing restrictions in specific urban areas, in refusing to lend to those proposing to purchase properties in areas which they do not consider sufficiently attractive to provide adequate security?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware that this is one facet of the problem to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) referred, in certain situations. However, there is a considerable area of overlap between building society lending as a whole and that for which local authorities have been responsible. We estimate that about 20 per cent. of building society lending is on pre-1919 properties. That does not obviate the problem. But there is an overlap here, because we also find the reverse position. In the past there was considerable lending by local authorities in areas and in respect of properties also covered by the building societies.

Empty Council Houses

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty council houses are not included in his Department's annual relets survey.

Mr. Freeson: It does not include dwellings outside the housing revenue account; but these form only a very small proportion of the total council stock, and many of them are occupied.

Mr. Knox: Will the hon. Gentleman take action to prevent councils buying privately-rented houses when so much of their own property is lying empty?

Mr. Freeson: It seems that some Opposition Members will not accept the

facts even when they are repeated constantly. Despite the wild stories to the contrary, the percentage of local authority-owned property standing empty at any one time is very small indeed. On the basis of the surveys which have been made, it is a much smaller quantity than that in the private sector. We are concerned to see that in terms of purchasing property under the municipalisation programme there shall be a concentration on priority housing, such as property requiring renovation and property standing empty on the market which could be used for homeless families and similar categories. We are examining with the local authorities ways in which, even now, they can tighten up procedures to ensure that properties do not stand empty for any undue length of time.

Development Control (Dobry Report)

12. Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he held with the architects' profession before making his statement of 12th November about the report of Mr. George Dobry, QC, on the development control system.

Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend took account of the views of five organisations representing architects.

Mr. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that more and more architects and individual citizens are fed up with the negative and niggling way in which our planning control system so often works? Will he re-examine the problem and reconsider the decision of his Department—taken without proper discussion in this House—to smother the main recommendation of Mr. Dobry's report?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has it right. On the contrary, we gave considerable thought to much of Mr. Dobry's recommendations, and we have given him full credit for what was a remarkable piece of work. We have fully considered all his recommendations. We have differed from him much more on the administrative way in which we carry this out.
As for the views of architects, I am as prepared as the hon. Gentleman to listen to their professional judgment on


many matters, though, surprisingly enough, on some matters such as design control, they are deeply divided. In terms of administration, however, we need to look closely at what the consequences may be.

Mr. Raison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the one body whose views have never been sought on this matter is the House of Commons? Will he accept that there is a great deal of resentment about the way in which he has handled this report, and will he take my hon. Friend's views very seriously?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot accept any of those points. As a matter of fact, at various times we have had quite interesting discussions on Mr. Dobry's views. In saying that, I am looking straight at the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my distinguished predecessor. He will recall many hours during the Committee stage of the Community Land Bill, in that happy environment of Standing Committee G, when Mr. Dobry's views were considered. If the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) cares to refer to Hansard he will see that during the past year the subject has come up again and again. As for the question whether there is time for further debates, I have no doubt that occasions will arise, even from the Opposition point of view, if the hon. Gentleman feels that there should be further debate.

Mr. Graham Page: As the right hon. Gentleman has discarded the main recommendations of the Dobry Report without debate in this House, will he review planning schemes between districts and counties to see whether there is any overlap of functions? Will he consider again the single planning staff which might avoid some of the duplication about which the Prime Minister has complained?

Mr. Silkin: On the latter point, I hope that, without any party difference, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, immediately, under the Community Land Act—though I agree that it is an uncovenanted benefit—we have given an opportunity for counties and districts to work together in land acquisition management schemes to see whether something like a unified staff can arise. I know that it was dear to the right hon. Gentleman's heart, as it was to mine.
Coming back to the point about discussions in the House, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it better that, as was the case, there should have been a reasoned reply from the Secretary of State to the Dobry proposals before any major discussion took place in this House?

Mr. Raison: No.

M23

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a final decision about the extension of the M23 motorway.

Dr. Gilbert: This will depend upon the outcome of the discussions with the Greater London Council, to which my right hon. Friend referred in his recent statement on the Greater London Development Plan.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is not it time that my hon. Friend acknowledged that the urban motorway is as obsolete as high-rise flats? Since Westway was pushed through North Kensington, the environmental standards required to build over motorways have made them impossibly expensive, even when we do not have financial stringency. The final extension of the M23 makes sense only if we are to have orbital roads, which clearly we are not. Surely my hon. Friend could now announce that this final extension is not to be built. Will he consider some form of intermediate road—a Ringway 2½—to link up round the south-west and south-east of London, rather than the motorway programme?

Dr. Gilbert: I have no difficulty in accepting my hon. Friend's general remarks about urban motorways, but he will be aware that the Greater London Development Plan mentions the need for better orbital movement in outer London, and certainly in South London. He is right in saying that the decision where the M23 shall terminate must depend on considerations of that kind and also on decisions about the way in which non-orbital traffic shall disperse more easily on to the secondary road network in the area in which the M23 terminates.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the conclusions arising out of the decision of the Secretary of State on the development plan


leave an untidy gap, and that people are still wondering whether, in the end, this Government will press ahead with more motorways in spite of their public protestations to the contrary?

Dr. Gilbert: I am aware of the public concern. This is one unsatisfactory feature of the planning requirements which surrounds the Greater London Development Plan. It is a situation that we hope never to have to struggle with again. I again give the assurance that our policy on urban motorways has not changed.

Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling in South London about the uncertainty caused by this indecision, and that in this case he could both save a great deal of public money and please a great many people if he cancelled this extension altogether?

Dr. Gilbert: I am, indeed, well aware of the public concern that has existed for many years in South London. I have already had informal discussions with the Chairman of the Transport Committee of the GLC about precisely where the M23 will terminate. I hope that we shall have further detailed discussions shortly.

Council Tenancies

Mr. Scott: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further guidance he intends to issue to local authorities regarding tenancy conditions for council tenants.

Mr. Freeson: This is one of the questions which the housing management adviser, whom I am appointing, will be asked to examine.

Mr. Scott: I do not suppose that the Minister will be asking that adviser to consider the commonsense and popular step of resuming council house sales. However, I should like to put forward two specific points for his consideration. First, will he consider advising local authorities to issue all tenancies in the joint names of husband and wife, so that wives who suffer violence in marriage will have some protection in terms of the council tenancy? Second, will he urge local authorities to encourage those who are under-using their council accommodation to take in lodgers, rather than discouraging them from doing so?

Mr. Freeson: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, we issued policy advice on this matter in our "Housing Needs and Action" circular some months ago. I am concerned that in connection with the management of council properties and, indeed, in the handling of mortgage facilities for local authority home loans, sufficient awareness is taken of this policy. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have some sympathy with him. I would point out that the housing adviser will be asked to examine the idea of joint tenancies. However, there is no reason why local authorities cannot proceed with this policy in the meanwhile, if they wish to do so. We must bear in mind that whatever work we do in housing management, covering this and many other matters, it will be for the local authorities, within their own jurisdiction, ultimately to decide.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the Minister agree that councils should enforce tenancy conditions with common sense and humanity? Is he aware that the council of the London borough of Bexley is threatening pet-owning tenants with eviction, causing great distress to children and elderly tenants? That council has refused the repeated pleas made by members of the community that it should operate a phasing-out system for pets rather than taking this hard-hearted and hard-faced attitude of evicting tenants and causing the destruction of their pets?

Mr. Freeson: Although I certainly would advocate a humane and common-sense view about housing management, I should hesitate very much before I commented on a local, individual situation. I accept the general approach that my hon. Friend has expressed, namely, that in handling problems such as pet-keeping there should be phasing-out wherever practicable. I do not wish to comment in more detail on a particular situation.

Statutory Authorities

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward legislation to make non-elected statutory authorities more answerable to their relevant county councils.

Mr. John Silkin: The accountability of non-elected statutory authorities will be a matter for consideration in the light


of the forthcoming consultations on devolution in England.

Mr. Ross: I welcome the Minister's reply, but I fear that this matter may take a long time to get off the ground. Is the Minister aware of the considerable frustration that is felt, at both district and county level, about the activities of some regional bodies? Does he not think that the time is now due to increase the ratio of elected members on those bodies, as opposed to those who are directly centrally appointed, as was originally envisaged under the Local Government Act 1972?

Mr. Silkin: I have a great deal of sympathy with much of the philosophy underlying what the hon. Gentleman said. However, the issues which he has raised seem to be very wide, and I am sure that they will receive close attention in the consultation paper on devolution in England, when that comes out. I have no doubt that both he and many local authorities will not be slow in giving their views on that matter.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to consider what might be done to bring regional economic advisory councils rather more up to date and make them rather more effectively democratic?

Mr. Silkin: I should have thought that the regional economic planning councils were part of the general look which will be required when the question of devolution in England is considered. I have no doubt that this matter will be raised at that time.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the Minister respond to the widespread and very natural concern that in many areas decisions about the fluoridation of water supplies are being taken by entirely nominated bodies, without any reference to elected representatives?

Mr. Silkin: We shall be issuing a consultation document on the water industry early next year. I have no doubt that there will be many representations at that time, along the lines which the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, many other hon. Members have put forward.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend also consider making non-

elected statutory bodies more accountable to the Minister, bearing in mind that the Central Lancashire Development Corporation operates largely as an independent cabal, although it affects the lives of half a million people?

Mr. Silkin: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest and very strong views about this matter, but there is always a balance to be considered. There is the balance between accountability of development corporations to the Minister, who, in turn, of course, is accountable to the House, and, at the same time, the natural desire and, indeed, the advantage in local development corporations "ganging their ain gait" and providing the necessary answers—[Interruption.] I thought that was a North Country expression, but it means going their own way—and coming to decisions which closely relate to the individual area. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that the decisions which they make must also strongly reflect the feelings, the desires, the ambitions, and so on, of the people who live in the area.

Direct Labour Departments

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of his working party which is looking at the operation of direct labour departments.

Mr. Freeson: It is too early to say when the working party will report.

Mr. Durant: The Minister's reply was most disappointing. Is he aware that an increasing number of these departments provide very unfair competition with small builders and the self-employed, and cost the ratepayers money? What is the Government's attitude to the proposed West Midlands Bill which is to extend the scope of local authorities in tendering?

Mr. Freeson: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be disappointed with my reply. The working party was announced only about four weeks ago. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wanted to have a go anyway, and I suppose that is a good practice in the House. On the matter which the hon. Gentleman raised, I merely say that at this stage we should wait for the working party's report. Let us see what results come from it in terms


of further developments in this area. However, in the meanwhile, let us not assume that efficiency in the building industry is to be found in only the private sector. Let us consider the need for efficiency wherever it is required, and not knock the concept of public enterprise in this area just for the sake of doing so.

Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the direct works department in Sheffield has run into rather serious legal difficulties in tendering for an important public project which the Yorkshire Water Authority wishes to carry out? Will he examine urgently the legal constraints on that department, which may cause serious unemployment if it is not allowed to go on tendering for projects which, from its experience and skill, it is well able to do?

Mr. Freeson: This area generally is already the subject of some examination by the Department, although until now I had not taken on board the point that my hon. Friend raised. I certainly undertake to consider this matter and bear it in mind when looking generally at the relationship of direct works departments to tendering for work in their areas, not necessarily confined to the services of the local authorities which run the departments.

Mr. John H. Osborn: Will the Minister examine the complaint of the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors against the South Yorkshire County Council? Although, in theory, the council believes in tendering for major contracts, the Sheffield-Rotherham link road was given to direct labour without there being a tender.

Mr. Freeson: That decision was entirely for the county authorities. It was not a Ministry road scheme. In any case, I understand that two other projects are coming forward from the same authority which will be open for tender.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that direct works departments have a very honourable and successful record of social enterprise over the past few years? Does he also accept that if it were not for those departments the number of trained building employees would have virtually dried up, because at least 50 per cent. of all apprentices in the building industry are employed by direct

works departments, and private enterprise has signally failed because of the perpetration of the "lump" which has led to shoddy work and low standards?

Mr. Freeson: As I said before, although briefly, one should look for quality and efficiency wherever it is required. My hon. Friend has raised an important point, which is too often overlooked by those who, in this area, are concerned simply to attack public sector activity for the sake of it. Direct works organisations throughout the country have been largely responsible for maintaining good employment and training practices in the industry.

Works Buses (Drivers)

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the system whereby double-decker works buses may be driven by PSV untested drivers, while hire firms need PSV licensed drivers even for minibuses.

Dr. Gilbert:: Under the Road Traffic Acts a public service vehicle driver's licence is required only to drive a vehicle used for hire or reward, and works buses are often not in this category. I am, however, prepared to consider whether there should be extra requirements for drivers of large private passenger vehicles.

Mr. Freud: Does the Minister agree that his answer smacks of bureaucratic bloody-mindedness rather than road safety?

Dr. Gilbert: No, Sir.

Seat Belts

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government intend to introduce legislation concerning the use of seat belts in cars.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory.

Dr. Gilbert: Yes, the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill will be reintroduced as soon as practicable in the present Session.

Mr. Jessel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us will be glad to hear that? Is he aware that when we


began to discuss the Bill 12 months ago his predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, said that the compulsory wearing of seat belts would save about 1,000 lives and 10,000 injuries a year? Is he further aware that these figures are borne out by experience in Australia, where the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars has been in operation for four years? The rates of both fatalities and serious injuries have been reduced by about 15 per cent. there. Every week's delay now costs about 20 lives and 200 serious injuries. Will the Government act quickly to bring the Bill before the House?

Dr. Gilbert: I am in complete sympathy with everything said by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashley: Does my hon. Friend recall one of his colleagues telling me, a few weeks ago, that nearly 20,000 people need not have died or been seriously disabled last year had they been wearing safety belts, and that the total number killed and injured over a period of years would dwarf the number of people killed or maimed in the last war? Will he treat this as a matter of urgency and ignore the rather silly announcements and pressures from organisations like the RAC?

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I certainly endorse the views and the statistics which he has put before us. It certainly will be my objective to reintroduce the Bill as quickly as possible, subject to consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

House Building

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with current home-building figures; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: Not yet, but the latest figures published last week show further progress in our efforts to get a recovery in new housebuilding. In the first 10 months of 1975 there were already 145,000 starts and 133,000 completions in the public sector, compared with 147,000 starts and 129,000 completions in the whole of 1974, and, similarly, private sector starts and completions were 124,000 and 122,000 compared with

105,000 and 140,000. The figures show 23 per cent. and 15 per cent. increases in starts and completions so far this year, compared with 1974.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome as they are, those figures are compared with a very poor base in the previous year and that we need to go much further if we are to get anywhere near the figures of the mid-1960s, when we completed about 1¼ million houses in three successive years? Does he also agree that we must have a fresh look at the way in which local authorities finance their housing, and consider whether it should continue on the 60-year basis, whether loans should be at the same level as for financing motorways, and so on, and whether the Department should consider even the possibility of writing off some of the capital debt of local authorities, as has been done for the National Coal Board, British Rail and, indeed, some private sector companies, recently?

Mr. Freeson: The financial points mentioned by my hon. Friend fall to be and are being considered as part of the general housing finance review on which the Department is still engaged. I certainly accept, as I indicated in my original reply, that the progress we have made is not yet satisfactory. However, it is considerable. Compared with 1973, in the public sector there is an increase of activity of between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. and a considerable improvement on the mortgage famine and the collapse of house-building for owner-occupation which we inherited at the beginning of 1974.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister accept that the economic situation will inevitably limit the amount of new building which can be carried out? In these circumstances, is there not a great need to review the improvement programme and to consider ways of bringing vacant property into use? In that connection, will the hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to reviewing the reasons why property stays unused and to finding means to bring that property into use for homes?

Mr. Freeson: On the last point, we are already ahead of the hon. Gentleman. We have been in detailed discussion with local authority associations for some


time now on a number of ideas for making better use of housing stock and bringing empty property into use. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a week or so ago, indicating half a dozen major points of policy on this issue. Concerning new building, I see these other initiatives not as alternatives to the level of new building, but as additional to it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister remove the restrictions on the improvement of older houses, particularly the installation of baths, hot water and inside lavatories? This could be done quickly, without involving the delay necessary in planning new housing, and would also relieve growing unemployment in the building trade.

Mr. Freeson: Concerning public expenditure budgeting for improvement, and, indeed, municipalisation, which is often closely associated with it, I must ask my hon. Friend to await the results of the public expenditure review, which is always current at this time of the year. I regret that I cannot undertake, if that is what my hon. Friend is suggesting, that no ceiling will be imposed on the budgets. Regrettably, the economic situation has pushed us in this direction. There will be budgeting, and not a no ceiling situation.

Mr. Raison: Is the Minister aware that we welcome much of the change of heart shown by the Secretary of State in his speech at Eastbourne recently? When can we expect the review of the Rent Act to be completed? Shall we have legislation, as a result, this Session?

Mr. Freeson: I shall be in a better position to say when such a review will be completed when it has started. It will follow in the wake of the housing finance review, as stated by the Secretary of State a week or so ago. The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks are inaccurate and misleading to the House.

A17 (Long Sutton Bypass)

22. Mr. Body: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now announce the preferred route for the proposed Long Sutton bypass (A17 road).

Dr. Gilbert: I hope to make an announcement on the preferred route for the A17 Wigtoft Sutterton and Long Sutton/Sutton Bridge Bypasses early in the new year.

Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman has been hoping for a long time to make that decision. This matter is causing a great deal of hardship. Does he not appreciate that it is very hard on many people to make these proposals and then for months to go by before a firm decision is taken?

Dr. Gilbert: I certainly accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Part of the difficulty in this case is that the route crosses good agricultural land. We are having discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we hope to reach agreement shortly.

Local Government Staffs (Pay)

23. Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in theOfficial Reportthe last six salary increases awarded to those employed in local government, together with the date of each salary increase and the percentage increase in basic pay on each occasion.

Mr. John Silkin: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the negotiation of local government wages and salaries. but I am sure that details of salary increases would be supplied on request to the hon. and learned Member by the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board.

Mr. Hooson: Is it not correct that a high proportion of the enormous increase in local government expenditure over the last few years has been due to salary increases, whereas the Government's economy drive is directed towards cutting down local government services? Does not this result in a much higher salaried service, providing a much more restricted service for the country? What comfort does the right hon. Gentleman derive from that situation?

Mr. Silkin: The whole question of the actual staff and its use, which is implicit in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, needs watching and reviewing. It is for that reason that my right hon.


Friend has instituted, with local authorities, the joint watch on staff. When one examines the general increase in staff over the past few years—even forgetting local government reorganisation—one finds that a certain amount of it, if not a great deal, is part-time staff.

Mr. George Cunningham: Given, however, that central Government meet about two-thirds of the cost of local authority salaries and that the cost of those salaries now constitutes a very large part of total public expenditure, is it bearable, in the long run, that central Government should continue to be detached from the process of settling salary levels in local government? Will the Minister give an undertaking that that question will be reviewed?

Mr. Silkin: Central Government have their interest in local authority matters, as my hon. Friend quite rightly says. I do not complain about that. One of the points of contact is the Government's counter-inflation policy, and this is something which local authorities have been loyally observing. But I again emphasise the importance, to my mind, of the joint staff watch and, indeed, of the consultative council—a newer and, I hope, additional relationship between central Government and local government which seems to me to be in the process of emerging.

Mr. Michael Latham: Would not the Prime Minister's remarks about chiefs and Indians in local government be more credible if the national Civil Service had not expanded by more than 11,000 in the last thre months?

Mr. Silkin: The Prime Minister's remarks about chiefs and Indians no doubt have a very much wider implication, even beyond local government. They may even go into private enterprise at times.

Mr. Dan Jones: When the Minister undertakes the review in question, will he be kind enough to tell the House the amount of money spent in relation to the early retirement of those employed by local authorities?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that I have the figures, but I feel that probably a deal of time could be spent, and perhaps wasted, on this exercise—with great respect to my hon. Friend. What we do

know is that a large number of golden handshakes and early retirements took place as a result of the reorganisation of local government by the Conservative Government.

BURMAH OIL COMPANY

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
About a year ago, Burmah Oil Company approached the Government and the Bank of England about its difficulties in meeting the technical requirements of certain loan agreements, notably those covering its large borrowings in dollars from a group of North American banks. As the House will know, it was agreed that the Bank should guarantee the North American borrowings for a period of 12 months and should also provide a further measure of support by way of a standby facility. However, Burmah has not been able to proceed as rapidly as expected with the sale of its United States assets.
The Government have therefore reviewed the situation with the company, including its cash needs, in consultation with the Bank of England and Peat, Marwick and Mitchell. It has been decided that the dollar borrowing guarantees should be renewed for a further nine months so as to give further time for the company to realise its United States' assets at a satisfactory price.
In addition, the Government have offered to purchase the whole or a substantial part of Burmah's North Sea oil assets at a fair price to be negotiated on an arm's-length basis. The board of Burmah is ready to enter into immediate discussions with the Government to explore all possibilities subject to its being satisfied that the interests of the company are fully safeguarded. These discussions will necessarily take some time and both parties are hopeful that they will be successfully concluded. Both parties are determined that the negotiations shall not hinder the continuing development of the North Sea.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Are the Government aware that they have already pocketed a profit of over 150 per cent., no less than £260 million, in less than


a year at the expense of the pension funds and the small shareholders in this company arising out of their take-over of the BP shares? Why have the Government now chosen the path of outright nationalisation of the company's North Sea interests? Why are not the Government prepared to continue the guarantee without forcing the company to surrender not 51 per cent. but the whole of its North Sea interests?
I have two questions of detail to put to the right hon. Gentleman. How much new money will the Government have to add to their borrowing requirement in order to be able to finance this purchase? Is this not just an example of highway robbery under duress? Have not the Government now become the biggest asset stripper of the lot?

Mr. Benn: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said in respect of the support arrangements made at the beginning of the year. I think that when perhaps, on reflection, he rereads my statement, he will recognise that an offer by the Government to buy at a fair price on an arm's-length basis does not qualify for any of the kind of phrases that he used.

Mr. Grimond: As the Minister is aware, I have made clear my view about Burmah and my interest in it. May I ask, first, whether the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that this company—though personally I have doubts about its claim for some share in the profit in the sale of shares—has been hit both ways, because its assets in Burma were destroyed and it was unable to profit from war damage compensation?
On this particular matter, will the Minister make clear whether the guarantee is dependent upon the company surrendering its North Sea assets? Will he also make clear that both these arrangements—the guarantee and the negotiations for the sale of the North Sea assets—are being entered into by the directors of Burmah perfectly freely without any Government pressure?

Mr. Benn: I do not propose to go into the other matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, although I know his concern with it. However, I am making a separate statement today about another matter and I think that it is clear from

the wording of the statement that the Government have offered to purchase and that the negotiations and discussions will now be taking place. But the position is set out very fully in the statement, and I think that it meets the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. English: When my right hon. Friend heard the Opposition spokesman, was he tempted to withdraw his guarantee on the spot and allow the company to go bankrupt? Is he aware that there are two aspects of the fair price? At present the Government are propping up the company with this guarantee. If they did not do so, it is conceivable that they might be able to acquire some of the North Sea assets at a quite reasonable price. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us on the Government side of the House wonder what exactly is meant by "a fair price" in this context?

Mr. Benn: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that when the Government announced the support operation at the beginning of the year, it followed from that that discussions with the company would be proceeding over the year; and what I have announced today is the extension of the guarantee and the offer to acquire some assets. On balance, I think that is the right response for us to make in the situation.

Mr. John Davies: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that uncertainty about the ultimate disposal of the shares in BP held by the Bank of England as collateral for the guarantee given casts a shadow of uncertainty over the operation of that great contributor to our national fortunes. Can he give any enlightenment about the Government's intentions on this subject? In particular, can he assure us that it is not the Government's intention to nationalise these shares as well?

Mr. Benn: If I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not blame him for putting the question—that is an entirely separate question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is entirely unconnected with the statement I have made today. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have made it clear that when they are ready to make a statement about that, they will do so.

Mr. Jay: In view of what the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Wood-ford (Mr. Jenkin) said, is my right hon. Friend aware that responsibility for the present situation rests with the management of the company and the previous directors, and that if the Government and the Bank of England had not rescued the company the shares would be worth even less than they are now?

Mr. Benn: I think my right hon. Friend is giving an account of the position as it was last December when the company approached the Government and we announced our original support operation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the terms of compensation in relation to the offer and bear in mind that a large number of small investors are involved in the company? Is he aware that a number of them have invested for retirement purposes and that they have already been hit very hard by the unfortunate developments affecting this company?

Mr. Benn: In my statement I said that the Government have offered to purchase the whole or a substantial part of the company's North Sea assets at a fair price to be negotiated at arm's length and that the board of Burmah was ready to enter into immediate discussions subject to its being satisfied that the interests of the company were fully safeguarded. In the discussions which my right hon. Friends and I have had with the company, these considerations have been in our minds.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the scheme will eventually be subject to the consent of the Burmah shareholders? Will they not find a pistol being put to their heads if they are forced to enter into negotiations now for the sale of the North Sea assets? What sort of effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will have on the assets of other British companies overseas when the compensation terms are forcibly negotiated in this way?

Mr. Benn: I do not accept that the situation is as the hon. Member puts it. The way in which Burmah conducts the negotiations is entirely a matter for the company. We have extended the guarantee and offered to purchase all or a substantial part of its North Sea assets at a

fair price on an arm's-length basis. That position is set out quite clearly in the statement, and I cannot accept what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the time of the collapse of Burmah Oil the company was in no different a position than is Mr. Riccardo with Chrysler? It had no collateral at all. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend watches this matter very carefully? Is he aware that, when he talks about negotiating at arm's length, that is not good enough for some of us on this side who think he should ensure that we get the 21 per cent. of shares which were there at the time of the collapse not on the basis of paying cash, for which there was no collateral, but for nothing at all? Is not my right hon. Friend aware that these shares were worth nothing then and that nothing should be paid for them?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend is referring to the acquisition of the BP shares at the beginning of the year. Whatever the position of the Burmah Company may or may not have been at that time—and I am making no comment on it—there is no doubt that the Government paid a fair price for the shares. That is a quite distinct matter from the offer I am in a position to announce today.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he cannot lightly brush aside the forced sale of the BP shareholdings last January? Does he accept that the severe drop in income faced by individual pensioners and pension funds is greatly resented, particularly in Scotland?

Mr. Benn: This has been the subject of a number of ministerial statements and letters. It was for the Burmah Company itself to decide last year whether to accept the offer made for the BP assets. This is entirely separate from the matter I am dealing with at the moment. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

BILL PRESENTED

DOCK WORK REGULATION

Mr. Secretary Foot, supported by Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Secretary Shore, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Frederick Peart, Dr. John Gilbert, and Mr. Albert Booth,


presented a Bill to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 15].

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, etc.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEVELOPMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Report on "Developments in the European Communities April-October 1975" (Command Paper No. 6349).

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: This is one of the two days given every year to discussing developments in the European Communities. Basically, we are discussing the EEC—almost the whole of the White Paper is concerned with that. Rather less has taken place in the other Communities, but we must not ignore their importance.
Developments within the Communities in the period under review have been particularly important. The six-month period covers the time of the referendum and the basic decision of this country, to which the great majority of hon. Members on both sides subscribed, that we should remain within the Community. This is a decision which, once having been taken by a referendum, can admit to no going back. Although we took this decision only a short time ago, we should not forget all the consequences for our policy in Europe and in this House which must inevitably follow from a decision of that magnitude.
This debate takes place against a background of an interesing conference in Rome in the last two days. It is right to refer to it because it is relevant to the present state of the Community and our membership and also relevant as the culmination of much that took place in the six months under review in the White Paper. We are glad that a compromise was reached in Rome which will enable the important international conference on energy and other matters to proceed. We urged the Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, on more than one occasion that there was an absolute need


to reach some sort of compromise, though at the time the right hon. Gentleman did not seem particularly willing to do so.
While welcoming the compromise agreement, we are entitled to ask what were the terms and what has been the cost in the long-term relationship between ourselves and our fellow members of the Community. Clarification is needed because the Press accounts of what was agreed are confusing and there are conflicting interpretations. The Foreign Secretary is quoted as saying that the document will contain a lot of cotton wool. We are used to the Foreign Secretary being frank in what he says about foreign affairs, but this is not a very good description of the basic negotiating position of the Community in a matter of this importance.
Hardly ever has a Minister emerged from an international conference with so much egg on his face as did the Foreign Secretary in Rome. He had said that no possible formula could be produced which would permit Great Britain to be represented by the Community at the forthcoming conference, yet that is precisely what has happened. He must accept a certain share of the blame if, having started off looking to be a modern Palmerston, he finishes up like the grand old Duke of York. It was clear that he would have to climb down. We warned him that he would have to climb down, and it is a good thing that he has done so. I see that the Prime Minister has been trying to save the Foreign Secretary's face. That is a very laudable thing to do.
Of the faces visible on the Government Front Bench, which is not as crowded as usual, the Foreign Secretary's is one of the least unacceptable. However, the extent to which the Prime Minister has gone in this attempt is extraordinary even for him. To try to claim that on this occasion Britain has achieved all its objectives is more ineffable than usual. The Prime Minister is reported as saying
If you shoot for the moon you might hit the top of Snowdon".
I take it that he means the mountain.
I am beginning to understand how the Prime Minister can claim to have achieved a victory when everyone else can see that he has suffered a failure.

I have checked the figures and I see that the distance from the earth to the moon is 240,000 miles. The height of Snowdon is 3,560 feet. If that is the ratio of success that the Prime Minister normally expects in his endeavours, it is not surprising if his assessment of his achievements differs somewhat from the assessment by most of us.
We are entitled to ask what was achieved at this conference, because it was of enormous importance. We are not to have a special seat separate from the Community, and I do not think anyone seriously thought we ever would. What are we to have instead? Here I must rely on the Press, because we have had no official statement from the Prime Minister. I rely on The Guardian, which is very distinguished in international affairs and which is not totally committed to the Conservative Party.
I gather that the president of the meeting will be empowered to invite other countries to present their additional comments in the light of their experience in accordance with the agreed mandate. What does that mean? If the comments are to be made in accordance with the agreed mandate, everyone can do the same. If we are to say something different from the other members of the Community, have they agreed that we should do so? If we are going to say the same as the other members of the Community, what is the point of the whole exercise? This seems to be an extraordinary situation.
What has happened over the decision on a floor price for oil? We are told that there has been agreement, reluctantly on the part of the West German Chancellor, that there should be a floor price for oil. Has the price been agreed? Is it, as the Press says, 7 a barrel? What on earth is the use of a guaranteed $7 a barrel if the current world price is already $11 or $12? If no price has been fixed, what is the purpose of the floor? If the floor price were fixed at $1, it would be a floor but a pretty useless one. If the Government claim that these things cannot be determined in detail in advance, which is a fair point, is there any agreement on the principles upon which this price will be determined? So far as I can see from the information available, there is no agreement on those principles.


If that is so, what conceivable use could any such agreement be to this country?
We have heard a certain amount recently about import controls. There seems to be considerable interest in them both by Labour Back Benchers and by the European Community. The White Paper says that the Community acts as a single unit in the GATT, but if we are to break the rules of the GATT and introduce import controls, if we are to ask for derogations from the international rules of the GATT, will the Community do that for us? If we introduce import controls, will they bear upon the world at large, including our Community partners, or will they merely be applied to other countries outside the Community? These are matters of fundamental importance.
We were told that these issues would be discussed at Rome, and presumably there was some talk about them. The House should know at this stage what conclusions were reached on this point. The accounts which appear in the most responsible newspapers are extremely vague.

Mr. John Mendelson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman could accept that the British Government are entitled to take certain action on an important topic like import controls, making their announcement on the principle when they announce their decisions on the policy. Not everything has to appear first in The Guardian.

Mr. Maudling: It depends whether by taking that action the British Government are breaking solemn treaties. The extent to which the Government are entitled to break treaties is quite another matter. In the course of the discussions in Rome, were import controls considered in relation to the rules of the Community and to the wider set of rules for the GATT?

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman is not making it easier for the Government.

Mr. Maudling: The Government do not help themselves in these matters.
I think that there is recognition in this House that we are committed in principle to direct elections to the European Parliament—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say exactly where we are committed to direct elections? A new myth has grown up that we are committed to direct elections. I put this suggestion rather on a par with some of the remarks by the right hon. Gentleman before the referendum which, as in the case of the energy question, seem to have been changed rather rapidly after the event. Exactly where in the Treaty of Rome does it say that we are wholly committed to direct elections?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot quote the precise article in the Treaty, but I think that the hon. Lady will be able to get that information from her own Front Bench.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: No.

Mr. Maudling: In that case we shall be interested to hear from the Minister of State where the Government stand on this issue. Last week I asked whether it was the Government's desire that direct elections should come as soon as possible or as late as possible. The Minister of State said "As soon as sensible". Whatever he means by that, he regards this country as committed by the Treaty of Rome to the principle of direct elections to the European Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: Never!

Mr. Maudling: They cannot come before sensible arrangements have been made. There is a vast range of problems in the drawing of constituencies and all the other details of elections. This is an important issue and we cannot resile from the principle of ultimate direct elections to a European Parliament without causing a breach of faith, which would be wrong.

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman was unable to quote the article he had in mind. Article 138 puts the onus of responsibility upon the Assembly to make proposals and on the Council to make recommendations to member States. Since under Article 109 the recommendation would not be binding, that means that this country is not bound. I have a letter from the Foreign Secretary which agrees that the recommendation of the Council would have no binding force


and that we would have to pass an Act of Parliament to give effect to it in any case.

Mr. Maudling: I respect the views of Ministers and, therefore, I ask the Minister of State whether he believes that the Government are bound by accepting the obligations of the principle of direct elections at the appropriate time by appropriate methods.
There was a small point which arose in Rome concerning passports, and I did not understand it. It was suggested in the Press that some new European passport is to take the place of the British passport. I would regret that very much. I still cling, old-fashioned as I am, to the British passport and to the words which refer to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State requesting and requiring, in the name of the Queen, that people should give us facilities. I hope that that will not be abandoned. If it is, it will be one of those examples of people trying to substitute for the substance of European unity a form of unity which pleases and helps no one. Perhaps on this point the Minister of State can enlighten us as to what exactly has been agreed, because at present it is hard to follow precisely what has been taking place.
I turn to the general development of the European Community. It must be clear that the reconciliation of national interests and Community interests is bound to take a long time and create very many difficulties. The confirmation of our membership only a few months ago was bound to add to the problems of this reconciliation—obviously. Also, the world recession, the increase in oil prices and all the economic tensions arising from the developments are bound to make a bad context for this problem of reconciliation. However, we must keep an eye on the long-term goal.
It is important to avoid harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. There is a real danger that the Brussels bureaucracy, which is perfectly properly and rightly concerned with harmonisation, will neglect what national Parliaments can see—the practical difficulties of putting into effect some of the promises No doubt harmonisation is desirable in principle, but it is obligatory only if it is required for the purposes of the Treaty of Rome. Any harmonisation efforts beyond that, al-

though perhaps laudable, are certainly not obligatory on this country.
There are two main points I want to make. I deal first with the relationship of the national State and the Community, Of course there was cession of sovereignty when we went into the Community. All international agreements involve some cession, although there was greater scope and far more flexibility in the Treaty of Rome than in any other agreement. However, nations will remain nations for the foreseeable future and will be determined to maintain their own national interests.
In 1957 we tried to negotiate a free trade area. I can remember talking to Professor Erhard, the then Economic Minister of the German Federal Republic, and asking how he had managed to sign a treaty which would mean that just before an election in Germany the Community might pass a new regulation which would grievously damage the interests of the wine-growers of the Rhine and the Moselle. He replied "The Community won't push Germany around like that". It is evident that a large country cannot be pushed around. The Community is not a single State but a partnership in which the individual must respect the interests of the whole and the partnership as a whole must respect the interests of the individual.
Against that background, the sort of arguments that have taken place in the past few weeks should be worked out not by confrontation or antagonism but by seeking a solution in a sensible and rational way to reconcile the national interests—which cannot be overridden—of great countries with the economic and overriding interests of the Community.
Harmonisation is right in principle but its purposes were, first, the free flow of goods and services and, secondly, the establishment of fair competition and widespread choice in the interests of the consumer. Why otherwise should we harmonise? Hegel said that the unity of the whole depended on the diversification of the parts. Freedom of choice and wider choice should be the Community's objectives—not a restriction of choice.
I cannot help believing sometimes that a little damage has been done in the public eye to the whole purpose of the Community by efforts to pass regulations about the contents of a jar of pickled


onions, the type of bread we eat and so on—all the things that do not happen but which are talked about too much and, which, because they are talked about, give the public at large an impression that the Community gives attention to minor considerations when the major considerations, which are fundamental, are not given adequate thought.
The record of recent months as set out in the White Paper is one of useful, if not spectacular, work, but we cannot expect spectacular work all the time. Valuable and useful progress has been made in agriculture, trade and other matters. There are two particular problems about which the British Government have been at odds with their Community partners. The first concerns the transport regulations dealing with drivers' hours and tachographs. The second is the question of the pollution of waters. I sympathise with the Government's point of view. I am not yet convinced that total harmonisation in the way proposed is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Treaty, and unless it is necessary I do not understand why it should be proposed or carried.
The transport arrangements constitute a difficult problem but could be worked out given enough time. On the question of the pollution of waters by the discharge of effluent, I do not understand why the same regulations that govern tidal waters—estuarial waters—should also govern internal rivers. If the Government oppose a system of total harmonisation, there is considerable substance in their argument.
We welcome the proposals to control the Community's expenditure. This is a sphere in which this Parliament, with its traditions of parliamentary government and control over expenditure—which has been somewhat eroded over the past 18 months—can make a useful contribution to a problem which has not yet been fully or adequately tackled by the institutions of the Community. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us a little further on the basic problem of allocating the Community's expenditure, because I find it difficult to understand the principle on which expenditure has been allocated for social and regional purposes, overseas aid and agricultural support. In view of the rather delayed,

although expected, German reaction, it is difficult to understand our position in relation to the heavy burden of expenditure. I hope that the Minister will give a clear picture of how priorities operate in this area and show the pluses and minuses for the United Kingdom's economy.
The basic economic problems facing the Community are clearly those of foreign trade and payments and of further co-ordination in the economic and monetary sectors. This is becoming more difficult the more the rate of inflation varies as between Community members and the more the economic prospects as between Community members tend to diverge. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress is being made on the concept of economic and monetary union, how the Tindemans Report stands and what the Government believe is likely to emerge from it, because, although economic and monetary union sound splendid objectives, it is often difficult to envisage how, in practice, they can work out in the unsatisfactory world in which we have to operate.
In some ways the most encouraging developments recently have been in the political sphere. I have already spoken of direct elections and I do not propose to do so again. In foreign affairs there has been a genuine and useful attempt to concert the foreign policies of the member States. It is perhaps a lesson in pragmatism if we make more progress in an area where there is a concerting of policies than in one where there is harmonisation of policies—in other words, an area in which we work together because we want to do so rather than because we have to do so.
Certainly the reaction of the Community, in which the British Government played a great part, in its decision on Portugal and on giving aid to Portugal is of considerable help and is important for the position of democracy in the southern flank of Europe.
I did not agree with the decision to suspend the negotiations with Spain about a trade agreement.. I hope that, now there has been a change in the régime in Spain, it will be recognised that it is important to ensure Spanish membership of the European Community on a proper and agreed basis at a time and a pace that will be suitable to all concerned. I hope


that the Community members and the British Government in particular will give much effort and thought to ensuring how that can be achieved. It would add a great deal towards the completeness of our European community of nations if Spain were ultimately to be there with us.
The same applies to Greece. We on this side welcome the possibility of the accession of Greece to full membership of the European Community, and Greece, too, is a country without which Europe cannot really in any historic terms be complete.
I gather that some efforts are being made, and there is some co-ordination of European points of view taking place, in an effort to make a contribution to the solution of the problem in Cyprus. In the Middle East also there is a considerable case for more European activity as such in an effort to seek a solution to the damaging, dangerous and, indeed, escalating problem which we now see there.
Probably most important of all is the reaction of the European Community to the Helsinki agreement. The White Paper tells us:
The Nine Member Governments intend to continue to co-ordinate their approach to the implementation and monitoring of the decisions of the Helsinki Conference…".
This is of fundamental importance. Much has been said about Helsinki, both before and afterwards. How should one take it? How serious is it? The Chinese seem to think that it is a major threat to world peace. I do not agree. I believe that it could be a great boon to mankind in the long run so long as we recognise, as I believe the Minister does, that nothing that happened at Helsinki, and nothing signed there, justifies any letting down of the guard of the Western nations. If we maintain our caution, if we maintain our guard, if we ensure that progress takes place along the lines envisaged in principle at the Helsinki Conference, we may be able to make a big contribution towards the future peace and happiness of mankind. There is no field in which the European Community can make a greater contribution than that.
The Community is not a military body, of course, but there is no effective division between military partnership and political partnership. The cohesion of the Western world, the cohesion of

Europe and the cohesion of Europe with the United States and North America are of fundamental importance still t the prospect of detente being successful. We must, however—I recognise that the White Paper makes a contribution in this direction—press on with the ideal of greater European unity, avoiding humbug, avoiding excessive bureaucracy, avoiding excessive euphoria, but thinking all the time that the job is well worth doing.

4.13 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): This debate is intended to enable the House of Commons to express its opinions on events which took place within the EEC between April and October 1975 and, if the House chooses, to raise criticisms of the way the Community has behaved. It is part of the procedure recommended by the Foster Committee to provide the House with an opportunity to examine the business of the EEC and the position taken up by British Ministers during the discussion of that business.
Inevitably, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maud ling) referred to yesterday's European Council meeting. That was plainly the part of his speech which he most enjoyed making, and I do not begrudge him that. I understand that the Prime Minister hopes to report to the House tomorrow on the outcome of that meeting, and it is clearly much better for questions about the Heads of Government meeting to be left until then and for comments on that meeting to follow the Prime Minister's statement. However, I can, I am sure, offer the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister's gratitude for the notice he has given him of the questions which he intends to raise.
I shall confine myself to the motion and the White Paper to which it specifically refers. Indeed, to do otherwise would be to deny the object of today's debate. The Foster Committee believed that regular opportunities had to be provided for the discussion of routine Community business. The more spectacular occasions can be discussed at other times and in other ways. My job is simply to refer briefly to some of the major themes in recent business of the Community and to listen to the judgment of the House upon them.
I cannot resist reminding the right hon. Gentleman that the White Paper deals specifically with the period April to October, and the motion which I understood him to be moving refers specifically to that period, though he felt it necessary in the first part of his speech—it brings a smile to his lips whenever I mention it—to deal exclusively with the events of 1st and 2nd December. He may wish to treat his own motion in that cavalier fashion. I treat it with a great deal more respect, and I shall actually deal with what his motion specifies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears to me that the motion is in the Prime Minister's name.

Mr. Hattersley: Then, of course, I treat it with even more respect than I was working up within myself, and I reprove the right hon. Gentleman for treating it in such a cavalier fashion.
This is the first of the six-monthly debates to be held since the British people decided that our destiny lay within Europe. The 5th June is now almost history, and I believe it best to leave it as such. Today I seek to draw no conclusions from the referendum campaign or its results, save to mention the simple fact that we are now irrevocably in membership of the Common Market—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—a point which the right hon. Gentleman himself made. Apart from the expressions of view of one or two wholly unrepresentative groups, Common Market membership is not now, I believe, an issue in British politics, and I take the view that debates such as this can be successfully conducted only against the background of that acceptance—the background of making the EEC work for Britain and making it work for our eight friends and partners with whom we have a mutual vested interest in building a successful Community.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Everybody knows the size of our oil deficit and knows of the difficulties which that causes the nation and our Government, but very few know the size of our deficit in trade with the EEC. Would it not be as well if Ministers sometimes gave the British people the information which would enable them to see that the decision

they made on 5th June was not as favourable to them as they were led to believe it would be?

Mr. Hattersley: I have already said that I do not wish to fight battles which are over and lost or won. Had I not said that, I should have reminded my right hon. Friend that one of the reasons for his confusion about the deficit with the EEC is that so much nonsense was talked about it during the referendum campaign. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary specified with considerable precision the extent of that deficit and the trade benefits we enjoyed through membership of the Community, and I am prepared to rely on those figures, published for the record and now increasingly understood throughout the country.

Mr. Fernyhough: With respect, I asked the Library to prepare the figures for me a week ago. I have those figures relating to our trade balance. If my right hon. Friend says that our deficit with the Common Market up to the end of September was not £1,900 million—if he says that that is not the position—I shall accept it, but he will be denying figures issued on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Hattersley: I say in response to that—and I shall try not to say it any more—that we are regrettably in deficit with a number of trading organisations, and the point I make, which the Foreign Secretary demonstrated in the House in a recent debate, is that were we not in membership of the EEC our overall deficit would be a great deal larger than it is at the present unhappy moment.
I return to the objective of building a successful Community, an objective which, I believe, needs in some ways to be defined. In company with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I am not attracted by expanding Community activity simply for the sake of doing so. Nor do I wish to see the Community forge common policies where there is no practical advantage in co-ordination or, as he described it, harmonisation. The Community is bound together by needs which genuinely coincide for all its members. Each of us has the same or similar vested interests in the solution of real and immediate problems. There is much that we


can do together which is practical, possible, necessary and beneficial. The Community should concentrate on those real and practical issues rather than spend its time and energy attempting "to build Europe", to use a fashionable phrase, an attempt which I believe the right hon. Gentleman regards as being completely artificial.
I give the House some examples of the real and immediate problems to which I refer. They are to be found in the White Paper which the Prime Minister's motion requires us to discuss. There is a need for more democracy within the Community and for the institutions of the Community to be made more accountable to the people whom they serve. There is a need for the Community to take up a coordinated and enlightened position towards the economic relationship of the developed and developing world.
There is a need for increased financial control of the Community budget and for more emphasis within the common agricultural policy, which accounts for over 70 per cent. of total Community spending, on the avoidance of surplus and waste, and the encouragement of the most economic farms. Perhaps most important of all, there is a need for greater convergence in the economies of the member nations.
Greater efforts should be made to reduce disparties between the strongest and weakest Community currencies. There should be a greater determination to reduce the gap between the richest and poorest regions within the EEC. Until the Community enjoys a more equal level of economic prosperity, the prospects of moving towards genuine integration, either economic or political, remain remote.
Section XI of the White Paper deals, among other things, with democracy within the Community. A decision was taken on that subject in Rome yesterday. As I have said, the Prime Minister will report upon it tomorrow. I emphasise today that the position that the Government have taken up in the Community is the position that is described in the White Paper, the position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have already described, at least in part, to the House. In the Government's view, Article 138(3) commits Great Britain, as other member nations, to hold direct

elections sooner or later. It does not say that we can do so without proper process in our national Parliament. It does not say that it is an obligation that we can discharge without carrying the House with us and passing a Bill. However, by our standards and judgment, it is a commitment in principle. We want to achieve the objective of the article at the first practical opportunity.
Direct elections to the European Assembly represent a major constitutional innovation for this country and a subject of major, and, I suspect, prolonged debate in the House. The Government must decide a number of specific issues regarding the form and nature of the elections. We must consult the parties, and we must offer our recommendations to the House. I believe that the House will, properly be, offended if we commit ourselves to preparation, consultation and recommendation and to obtaining the approval of Parliament by a specified predetermined date.
I would not myself relish announcing in the House not only that a White Paper and Bill were in prospect but that we had told our Community partners the date by which we would have the Bill passed into law. If everything can be done properly and in time for an election in 1978, we can clearly march in time as well as in step with our Community partners. If that cannot take place, I can only repeat the view that I expressed during Question Time last week—namely, that we must do things in proper order even if we do them a little later.
I hope that our position on direct elections will be taken by our partners as proof that we do not make promises to them that we cannot fulfil. I hope that it will be taken as an indication of the importance that we attach to the Assembly and its essential status. Of course, in the foreseeable future its powers are unlikely to be radically increased. For years ahead the Community will remain accountable to national Parliaments as it is now through the Council of Ministers. But no one can deny the importance, both practical and symbolic, of direct elections.
Six Community members have been thinking about implementing Article 138 for 17 years. If it takes us six or seven


years of membership to implement it successfully, in my view we shall not have done badly.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend will know that many supporters of the Government would not share his interpretation of Article 138, but if the Government are now saying that there is an obligation to have direct elections, will he say why that was not spelled out in paragraph 131 of Command 6003, which was the renegotiation White Paper. The paragraph reads:
If British membership is confirmed, any scheme for direct elections to the European Assembly would require an Act of Parliament.
If the Government believed that there was such an obligation, why did they not say so at the time of the referendum?

Mr. Hattersley: That is what I said at the time of the referendum, but if it was omitted from the White Paper I suppose that we anticipated greater knowledge amongst our opponents than has turned out to be the case. The referendum campaign allowed my right hon. and hon. Friends and others who took a position different from the one that I then occupied to argue their case. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), like me, had an opportunity during the campaign to draw the attention of the citizens of Great Britain to Article 138 and to what he thought it meant. I now tell him what I believe it to mean. If he thinks that I am wrong, we must differ.

Mr. Neil Marten: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he and the Government are committed to Article 138. I believe that that statement was based on the advice of Foreign Office lawyers. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House how the Government have arrived at that commitment? Will he go through the Treaty of Rome and show us where the commitment is to be found? He has not done that, and that is exactly what we are questioning.

Mr. Hattersley: I referred to Article 138(3) of the Treaty, which requires the Assembly to draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage. I suppose that it is possible to argue that the Treaty intended the Assembly to draw up proposals and then to tear them up and

throw them away, but that does not seem to be a practical or realistic interpretation of the Treaty.

Mr. Spearing: Read the next paragraph.

Mr. Hattersley: I am conscious that the next paragraph talks about the appropriate provisions to be recommended to member States. That is clearly the obligation in principle. That is the obligation which we intend to discharge.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose—

Mr. Hattersley: No, I have already taken a long time. I think it best if I continue with my speech.
During the period covered by the White Paper the Parliamentary Labour Party has taken up its seats in the Assembly, to which direct elections will one day be organised. The House is now fully represented and plays an increasingly important part in Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The Government believe that the House will want to hear comments from the new delegation about its work in Europe and on the view that it has of the EEC, based on its experience at the Assembly. It is our hope that towards the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who leads the Parliamentary Labour Party delegation, will catch the eye of the Chair. So that he can do his subject justice, we gladly offer my right hon. Friend the time that might on another occasion be taken by a Government spokesman. It seems essential that we hear his judgment—a better judgment there could not be—on how the Strasbourg Parliament is operating and how the European Assembly works.
One of the powers of the Assembly in which my right hon. Friend plays such a distinguished part is the right to comment on and perhaps to increase the Community budget. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the White Paper set out details of the budget that the Assembly received from the Council. That is the 1976 draft budget that has now been considered by the Assembly and sent back to the Council for its further examination. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is now discussing the Assembly's proposals at the Budget Council in Brussels.


The document that the Council is considering includes modifications and amendments proposed by the Assembly which, if accepted, would add another £180 million to the overall draft budget.
It would be wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of that Council's deliberations, but in the present climate of financial stringency I believe that it is unlikely to accept all the increases which the Assembly has proposed. However, I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased to learn that we expect at least some of the cuts made on 22nd and 29th September in the provision for the Social Fund, an important fund to the United Kingdom, to be restored as a result of what the Assembly suggested. We hope that the Council will accept those suggestions.
I have dealt with matters concerning the internal organisation of the Community during the six months under review. Inevitably, during the months from April to October the Community continued to examine its institutions and internal organisation. Central to that examination has been the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy. The Labour Government have always held the view that the CAP was a policy for consumers as well as for producers, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made that clear during his meetings with other Agriculture Ministers. We have continued our pressure to create an agricultural system which is more geared to the needs of the most efficient farms and which avoids the creation of unnecessary surpluses and waste. We look forward to the report of the Agricultural Council on this subject being taken into account by the Commission in next year's annual price review. Our policy will be to advance at every Council meeting where it is both possible and appropriate specific changes that contribute towards the achievement of a generally more acceptable agricultural policy. The CAP cannot, and never could have been, changed overnight, but we shall continue to work for its further improvement. This may well have to be gradual, but we intend that gradually improvement shall come about.
At the same time, within the Agricultural Council we shall be examining the future of the common fisheries policy.
The Community now accepts that changes will be necessary if there is to be an extension of international fishing limits. We in Great Britain could be faced with particular problems if, at a time when some countries are extending their fishing limits as a result of decisions taken at the Law of the Sea Conference, we are required to apply the present common fisheries policy, which would open the waters around Great Britain to the trawlers of other Community countries. Clearly, substantial changes have to be made, and it is the Government's intention to work for them and for their successful acceptance.
All these matters—the European Assembly and its elections, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy—are essentially matters concerned with the organisation of the Community. But the months between April and October have not been a period in which the Community has been obsessively concerned with its organisation to the exclusion of matters involving the world outside. The Community has continued to use its political co-operation machinery to obtain, wherever possible, a common Community view on relations with countries outside the EEC. It has continued to use that machinery to coordinate the foreign policies of individual members.
I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman drew the House's attention to the success with which that policy has been applied in the Community's relations with Portugal. It has been the common wish of Community Foreign Ministers to encourage the attempts of the Portuguese to establish a genuine democracy in their country. We have made that clear both by the way in which we welcomed Major Antunes to the Council and by the assurance we gave him about the ready availability of a preferential Community loan. Indeed, the success of these attempts at co-ordination are a major feature of the Community's work during the period of the White Paper.
At the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations, Community Foreign Ministers, working in close co-operation, made a major contribution to the consensus resolution with which that meeting ended. The EEC was determined that the Seventh Special Session should be


characterised not by conflict between the developed and the developing worlds but by co-operation in the pursuit of complementary goals. The position which the Community took up was to a very great degree influenced by the ideas put forward by my right hon. Friend at the Kingston meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The support of that policy by Community Foreign Ministers was a major contribution to the satisfactory ending of the Seventh Special Session.
The Community's commitment to the developing world was demonstrated earlier in the year by the Lomé Convention. Its trade provisions came into effect in July, and its African, Caribbean and Pacific signatories now enjoy easier access to the European market. The Lomé Convention—referred to in the White Paper—is only a part of the Community's aid policy. In our view, the programme needs to be more balanced and, in particular, to pay more attention to the needs of the poorest developing countries. I have in mind especially India, Bangladesh and other countries in the Indian subcontinent. These already take a large share of the Community's considerable food aid programme, and we are supporting the Commission's proposals for a considerable increase in 1976. But these countries, which are not eligible for the Lomé Convention, get no continuing financial assistance from the Community. They did get much of the Community's contribution to the United Nations emergency measures, but that was a one-off operation.
Since the Development Council agreed in principle to financial and technical assistance to non-Associates last year, we have been pressing for implementation of a genuine, meaningful and realistic aid programme. To my regret, some member States have so far been unable to agree, but we shall keep on trying, we shall keep on pushing and we shall keep on describing the advantages of and necessity for such a policy. In response to what the right hon. Gentleman had to tell the House about the way in which the Foreign Secretary operates within the Community, that is exactly how the Community works and how the Community should work.
The Community works by discussion, by initial disagreement, by more discus-

sion and by eventual mutual agreement on a satisfactory policy. That is exactly how the debate on the Paris energy conference was conducted, and that is exactly how it ended. It is clear to any objective observer—if not to those who did not want Britain to fight, those who wanted Britain to fight and one or two who wanted Britain to fight and then lose so as to make a debating point about it—that Britain's interests as an energy producer are fully safeguarded by the arrangements which were agreed yesterday and about which the Prime Minister hopes to answer a Question tomorrow.
Indeed, Britain's special position has been recognised by the arrangements which have been made for the 16th December conference. My right hon. Friend will be there, and I am sure that the Prime Minister will expand on that matter when he makes his statement tomorrow. He will do so against the general background of one of the significant areas the right hon. Gentleman raised; that is to say, the general development of the Community and the problem in the Community of reconciling national and Community interests and producing a consensus policy which meets all the wishes of all the member nations. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no advantage, no virtue and no common sense in looking for co-operation in an artificial sense, and trying to harmonise for no greater reason than to be able to announce that harmonisation has been carried out.
That is not the Community that I see emerging. I see emerging a Community which is increasingly sensible, increasingly practical and increasingly devoted to the real issues of European co-operation. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman some examples of what I mean in terms of the real basis on which the Community operates.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the real purpose of the Community was to give a fair wind of competition and to provide a wider choice. That is not a bad description of a free trade area, but it is not an adequate description of the European Economic Community. The Community always aimed to go further and do more. May I say, in passing, that the regulations about which we are all tempted to make jokes, concerning the number of onions in a bottle, the sex


of hops and rear-view mirrors on agricultural equipment, are part of the free trade aspects of the Community. They are attempts to remove artificial barriers to trade—other than tariff barriers—which are probably as much against the interests of competition as are regulations which are not common between one country and another.
Whether or not that argument is accepted by the House, the basic feature of the Community of which the right hon. Gentleman has to take account is its intention to do more than simply create the atmosphere of free trade. It is supposed to be—and he congratulated it on this account—involved in creating a common foreign policy for member States where a common foreign policy is necessary. It is supposed to be—and the House congratulated it on this—involved in ironing out disparities of wealth between one part of the Community and another by positive policies, the richest countries contributing towards the employment prospects in poorer regions. It is supposed in the common agricultural policy—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It is also concerned with the movement of people and the migration of people. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend intends to comment on the reference made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to the possibility of the admission to the EEC of Greece. If he does, he will have to think about the restriction of the admission into and employment in this country of Greek Cypriots. The Immigration Act 1971, which is still in operation, puts Common Market citizens who want to work in Great Britain in a more favourable position than new Commonwealth citizens. Are the Government applying their mind to these problems?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend has asked me about several problems but I will answer only two because time prevents my doing anything else. The Community as a whole would welcome the accession of Greece when that is possible, and in the interests of Greece to do so. I believe that the Community will not be complete until she is a member, but a number of technical discussions must be carried out in the interests of Greek agriculture and her economy before she

is ready to sign the final act of membership.
We have all learnt the hard way of the difficulties involved in joining the Community first and worrying about the terms afterwards. The advice we are able to give to Greece from our particularly strong position after the renegotiation is that it is necessary to look at the small print and ensure that it says what she wants it to say. When the small print and terms are right for Greece, the Community will welcome her membership.
On the transfer of people within the Community, my hon. Friend is confusing two concepts. The first is the right to move under Article 108 of the Treaty of Rome, dealing with the free movement of labour to take jobs in the Community under certain conditions, and the other is the right of citizens to bring in families and dependants, which is traditionally associated with the Commonwealth. Many hon. Members for constituencies like mine would say "Long may that remain."
The right hon. Gentleman commented about the future building of the Community and our obligations to it. I hope that I speak not only as myself, a good member of the Community, but as a member of a Government who wants to support the ideals, aspirations and intentions of the Community. But very often when we are tackled about our behaviour in the Community, the arguments we may have with other member countries and the interchanges of debate held privately in the Council of Ministers and reported in The Guardian next day, we are accused of supporting British interests to the point where our good Community credentials are in doubt. I have never been prepared to accept that sort of criterion for what is good Community membership and what our obligations are towards our other partners.
There is, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a duty on each member nation to pursue the specialities of its own interest but there is a duty upon each member nation also to pursue those specialities in such a way that it accepts, anticipates and respects the interests of the eight other members. I believe that we have done both these things, and I hope that we shall go on doing them.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I take note of this White Paper with a feeling of despondency verging on despair. It will come as no surprise to the few hon. Members who are in the House today to know that I am a committed believer in the potential of the European Community to help find a solution to some of the greatest problems we face in this country and in the world at large.
This deadpan document is written more in the style of a particularly dull chairman's statement to the stockholders of a company than in the style of what perhaps would seem to meet an exaggerated requirement but which to me should be in the style of a "Pilgrim's Progress." It is deplorable that the record of six months should be so thin and so valueless.
I find it difficult to say some of these things just after the right hon. Gentleman has sat down, because I have a strong feeling that in many respects he and I share similar views on the future of the Community. The effect of the referendum, as it reacts upon this country, has also produced reaction amongst our partners in the Community. They assumed that from the time Britain joined it would be wholehearted in its determination to pursue dynamically and determinedly the objectives of European common action.
I do not judge by reports in newspapers, but on the innumerable occasions I have had to meet and consult with our other partners I have found their experience to be one of great, great disappointment. They were disappointed because they found the actions and postures of the British Government on the development of the Community petulant and petty-minded. I find that unacceptable in the state in which we find ourselves in this country and in the state we should be in after the referendum.
The right hon. Gentleman underlined the need to debate only the White Paper and the need to take account only of the events that have taken place. I believe that nothing in that White Paper or in this debate debars us from discussing things which have not taken place to the damage of this country and to the Community at large.
One bright light that shines out in an otherwise dismal world is the Lomé Con-

vention, but this simply throws into greater highlight the deficiencies in other areas. In dealing with the whole range of Community problems it is impossible, in the time that one could reasonably accord oneself in the debate, to do more than scratch the surface, and no doubt much will be said about institutional, trading, budgeting, agricultural, economic, monetary and industrial problems faced by the Community. One is bound in this vast spectrum of activity to try to select those areas in which one feels perhaps the most involved and most concerned. I deliberately, therefore, reserve for tomorrow's statement some reference to the matters concerned with the performance we have just witnessed at the meeting in Rome.
I therefore seek to concentrate more on industry, the missed opportunities, the delays, the deferment of decisions, the incompetence that has been shown by the Community as a whole—I make no excuse for it—but no less by the British Government, whose performance is really unacceptable.
For example, there is the whole question of energy policy, particularly in relation to representations at the Paris conference due to take place this month. This question of representation is a smokescreen for the reality of the problems within the Community on energy policy. The absolute overriding need which has been there intensively ever since this Government took office has been to find means of optimising the resources of the Community in terms of its own energy needs. The meeting of the great producing States is of much importance, but the Community in the near and long-term future faces problems of a quite overwhelming kind both in cost and shortage of energy terms, and in mal-utilisation of energy in terms of maximum economy or optimum use of energy resources.
Our problems in the Community are not to try to differentiate between our own interests and those of the Community. Our interests are in any case ascertained and preserved. We have to try to see how, with the remarkably valuable resources which this country has, we can combine, not to our disadvantage but to our advantage, to ensure that this Continent moves forward to a more valid and useful future. Those interests are not incompatible. There is no


incompatibility between British interests—as a great consumer but also as a great and growing producer of energy—and those of our partners in the Community. The endeavour—which to my mind has been carried to a point of ridicule—to underline what is apparently thought to be a contrast has done ineffable damage to our position in the Community and, I believe, to ourselves as well.
I speak next of another industry where the problems are in some ways no less severe. We see in the White Paper a brief statement concerning the shipbuilding industry and the provision of continuing arrangements within the Community concerning the subsidisation of this industry, but they absolutely fail to take account of the fact that this vast great traditional industry in this country is now facing a deep recession, in concert with the same industries in every Community country. Indeed, it is more widespread in other European countries which might well in days to come be members of the Community. It is facing a period of recession which, unless early action is taken on a Community basis to overcome it, may well land us without a shipbuilding industry—nationalised or not—within a decade.
That is where the issues bite, and that is where there is a need for the Government to show their determination to lead their partners into an understanding of the dangers that beset this industry, and the need to find measures to overcome them.
I turn now to a third industry, the aircraft industry, which was also treated yesterday to the nationalisation process. The aircraft industry is nationally a profitable and advantageous industry. This morning, writing in The Times, Sir Arnold Weinstock noted that this industry, as we all recognise, has no means alone of producing a civil airliner for the next generation of requirements; therefore, great importance must attach to the need to progress with vehemence towards a Community common action on this matter.
What action have the Government taken in this respect? Virtually none. The Commission has made proposal after proposal. They are not necessarily the right solutions. They pose difficult problems, but the truth is that they bring home, as nothing else can, the urgency and the danger which beset this enormous

industrial employer and earner in this country, and in the Community at large. What have the Government done? As far as I have been able to see and to hear, they have done little to pursue this urgent and immediate need.
There are other industries which could, I am afraid, be referred to in the same context. I have been glad to see the Community make modest progress—modest indeed, and little supported by the Government—in improving Community action on data processing. But it represents a very tiny advance concerning a problem facing the Continent as a whole in terms of its future capacity to sustain the industry.
I have deliberately stuck to the industrial element of the Community's activity, but it is in some ways illustrative. We have these overwhelming problems ahead of us. We have energy problems, industrial problems and electronics problems of all kinds, which face us as a country but which more and more are evidently not soluble within a national context, yet we have frittered away at least six months—if I am limited to those, but I would say two years—in idle argument and discussion, instead of trying seriously to advance in fields where the Community should advance.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and I have had the experience of following one another on many occasions in these debates. After listening to his speech today, I am hopeful that it will not be very much longer before his views are harmonised with my own.
It is perhaps fortunate that the debate has fallen immediately after the summit conference in Rome yesterday, although frankly, it would have been more helpful if we had had an official and reliable statement of what actually happened there yesterday.
The debate enabled the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to damn the EEC with extremely faint praise and the right hon. Member for Knutsford to damn it almost without any praise at all.
However, we are informed from the Press—and the Minister's speech, which


gave us remarkably little new information, appeared to confirm this—that the Prime Minister committed us yesterday at the Rome Conference to direct elections to the EEC Assembly. Neither the Prime Minister nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had any authority to do this, either from this House or from the electorate.
The referendum—on which I take my stand, as does my right hon. Friend—gave no mandate to the Government for direct elections, because the Government most carefully refrained throughout the referendum campaign from saying that EEC membership involved direct elections to any federal parliament. Indeed, the Government's referendum manifesto—the little popular pamphlet which was distributed to every household in the land—said this:
No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.
It also said—I quote this in view of what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said today about the decision being irrevocable—that membership depended on the
continuing assent of the British Parliament.
Those were the Government's words in the pamphlet, and there was no mention anywhere in it of direct elections to the EEC Assembly.
The Foreign Secretary has recently attempted to argue—and so did my right hon. Friend the Minister of State today, I thought extremely weakly, without any chapter and verse or exact quotation from the treaty—that there is a treaty obligation on the United Kingdom to proceed to direct elections. There is no such treaty obligation, as everyone knows who has troubled to read the actual words of Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. Let us therefore look at the words and not take refuge in vague platitudes and ambiguities.
The words of Article 138 are unusually clear for the Treaty of Rome. First, it states that:
The Assembly shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
Secondly, it says that:
The Council shall, acting unanimously, lay down the appopriate provisions, which it shall

recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Therefore, there is a treaty obligation on the Assembly to draw up proposals and on the Council to make recommendations. There is no legal obligation in the article or anywhere in the treaty on the member States at all.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Then what is the purpose of this article? Is it purely to enable the Assembly and the Council of Ministers to go through a meaningless pantomime? Does it serve any purpose?

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman may express an opinion of that kind. However, I was quoting the actual words of the Treaty, which is a legal document, and it is clear beyond argument that there is no legal obligation on the member States, as opposed to the Council or the Assembly.
What is more, the Council is explicitly mandated to recommend provisions to member States; and, as all hon. Members know, including I am sure the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), Article 189 lays down equally clearly that
…recommendations and opinions have no binding force.
That must mean that member States are free within the Treaty to accept or to reject recommendations from the Council.
Secondly, the Council has to act unanimously even in making the recommendation. That means that each member State has the right of veto, though I do not discuss now whether it should use it. To quote again the words of the Government's referendum manifesto,
The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.
That was the pledge given to the public in the referendum campaign. Therefore, it is clear, whatever we think about the policy or the merits, that there is no legally binding obligation in the Treaty of Rome on any member State to proceed to direct elections.

Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend now talks about a legal obligation. I talked about an obligation in principle. Reading the words, as my right hon. Friend has done, and understanding their


implications, as I am sure he does, would he not regard it as a grotesque breach of faith if a British Government accepted that provision but said that we were not committed to it because of the narrow legalistic interpretation that my right hon. Friend has just advanced?

Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend is now changing his ground. Two weeks ago in this House, the Foreign Secretary said that there was a treaty obligation which we would honour. My right hon. Friend is now admitting that there is not a treaty obligation, but saying that on political and general grounds he thinks that this is a step which we should take. That is a quite different issue. But, on the matter of principle, if the Government say to the people in a referendum campaign that the British Government, in the Council, have the right to accept, to reject or to veto any proposal of this kind, they should not come back afterwards and say that because something is recommended they are bound to accept it. In terms of the law, the position is clear. In terms of principle, that is my answer to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, it is perfectly clear that there is no legal obligation, and frankly I regret that my right hon. Friends should have gone some way to mislead the public into believing that there was.
I ask again the question which my right hon. Friend did not answer in the middle of his speech. If there is really a legal obligation in the Treaty of Rome on the United Kingdom to accept direct elections, why did the Government never mention this in the referendum campaign? Was it because they had not then become aware of it? Or did they know it and seek to conceal the fact from the electorate?
This is hardly a minor matter. Direct elections, if they go beyond mere appearance, convert the Common Market into a federal State and therefore involve a fundamental loss of sovereignty by the member States. Either the elected Assembly has no power, in which case it really is just a sham. Or, if it has real, substantial power, the member countries inevitably are bound up in a federal system to that extent, and cease to be fully independent sovereign countries. Whether any of us favours this is another matter, and I can imagine that some do.
But, as Hugh Gaitskell said in his memorable speech in 1962, it is not a matter to be decided light-heartedly after many centuries of British history as an independent nation.
In my view, it is not for the Prime Minister, during a two-day trip to Rome, to commit us to the revolution without any authority from this House or from the electorate, whatever one may think of the exact provisions of the Treaty of Rome. I remind my right hon. Friend that even he, in answer to a question of mine in this House since the referendum, agreed—and I think he will still agree—that the referendum vote was not a vote for joining a federal State.

Mr. Hattersley: indicated assent.

Mr. Jay: That statement was made by the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend agrees with it.
I hope at least, therefore, that we shall have a clearer confirmation than we have had so far from the Government today—and I gather that no further ministerial statement is to be made tonight—that direct elections cannot take place without legislation by this Parliament, and that no binding commitments have been made to the other countries concerned and will not be made, unless and until such legislation has been passed.

Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as matters stand at present, conclusions reached at the European Councils are subject to further action within the Community before they become capable of implementation legally. Therefore, it may be that the whole of what he has said to date is suspect in some sense in relation to the current constitutional position within the Community.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. Member for Knutsford, who has great knowledge of these matters, sounds as though he is confusing regulations, decisions and directives with recommendations. It is quite plain from Article 138 that the only power that the Council has in this matter is to make a recommendation which he knows quite well is not binding.
As my right hon. Friend said something, but I thought lamentably little, about the common agricultural policy, I should like to ask what has become of


all the promises that we had of a major reform of that policy and of the stocktaking document which was supposed to produce great benefits for the country. More and more, people are asking why France can flagrantly break the rules in this matter—for instance, by imposing an illegal tax on imports of wine—and no one does anything about it, while the vital British interests in major reforms of the CAP are being ignored almost totally.
When are we to have a firm Government statement on the final decisions taken arising out of the stocktaking document? We did not get it today. May we also have some answers to the questions on the CAP which were never answered, ostensibly through lack of time, in the debate in this House on 17th October? Is it true, for instance, as both the Economist and the Financial Times have told us, that the EEC is now intending to spend in 1976 about £1,000 million—about one-third of the entire EEC budget—purely on taking dairy products away from the consumer, and over £300 million of that £1,000 million on feeding skimmed milk back to animals? Those are just one or two of the details of the common agricultural policy which one could discuss at very great length. What is the position of the New Zealand butter quota? We have only Press reports indicating that other members of the EEC are trying to squeeze this quota far below what we were promised in the renegotiations.
When will the Government make a really substantial effort to reform these indefensible agricultural policies which are doing so much damage to our balance of payments and our standard of living?

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Inevitably I shall pick up some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on more than one occasion in his speech. However, I shall deal with those matters in the course of my speech rather than referring to them immediately.
Basically, I agree with what the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said. I am very disappointed by the type of progress which is outlined in the

White Paper. Obviously, I approach this matter from a different standpoint from that of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. I am a supra-nationalist and he is not. Therefore, inevitably he is worried about the very small movement in this direction, and I am equally worried about the lack of movement. It seems to me that in the months which the White Paper covers Britain has been the Community's brake when she had many opportunities to be the Community's motor.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Rubbish.

Mr. Johnston: I shall deal with the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in a moment. Indeed, I shall devote a special part of my speech to her.
Basically, Britain has not been responsible for initiating progress, despite the many statements which were made at the beginning and which are quoted conveniently and helpfully in the annexes of the White Paper.
On 9th June the Prime Minister said:
I now say to our partners in the Community that we look forward to continuing to work with them in promoting the Community's wider interests and in fostering a greater sense of purpose among the Member States.
In Luxembourg on 24th June the Foreign Secretary said:
…it is my hope and intention, as far as I have responsibility in this matter, that we shall increasingly see the Nine countries acting as one in their relations with the outside world.
I regret to say this has not been the case, and there are many individual examples which can be quoted. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Knutsford has already listed a number. I should like to refer to one or two matters before I turn to the main points which I wish to make.
I referred to the regional policy during the recent foreign affairs debate, but I believe that the whole attitude on regional policy was remarkably well summed up by Professor Dahrendorf, a Liberal and the former West German Commissioner in the Community, who, in the Europa insert in The Times this week, said:
I have always held the view that a serious European regional policy is an essential feature for a policy for Europe. However, to date there has not been any serious European regional policy of this kind. What we now call regional policy is a limited process of


financial adjustment without a genuine political conceptual foundation and is therefore quite inadequate.
As I sat on the regional committee of the European Parliament throughout 1973 when the main guidelines were being laid down, the passage which I have quoted sums up very well my feelings on this matter. The reason for this cannot be laid at the door of the West German Government for reducing the size of the fund. To a large degree it must be laid at the door of the British Government for refusing to accept commonly applicable standards for regional development throughout Europe. If we do not have commonly applicable standards we do not have a common European regional policy.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the hon. Gentleman quote Professor Dahrendorf even further, because he also says that in Bonn we have been described as the "paymasters". Moreover, that is the West German Government's attitude and it has materially affected the effective setting out of a really useful regional policy. Professor Dahrendorf is implying that the attitude of other countries involves the effectiveness of the regional policy.

Mr. Johnston: Of course everyone is entitled to read into other people's words various things. However, I have the article before me, and Ralf Dahrendorf, understandably, knowing his views, objects to the word "paymaster" and points out quite justifiably and correctly that West Germany has benefited economically a great deal from its membership of the Community, and, therefore, those who use the expression—

Mrs. Dunwoody: In Bonn.

Mr. Johnston: —yes, in Bonn—should not use it. However, that in no way detracts from the argument that I am advancing. I am putting forward the view that to a degree the British Government's attitude has helped the "paymaster" argument and given it a strength and credence which it would not otherwise have had.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford spoke about a number of matters such as pollution and the aircraft industry. One could add to the list, even safety glass for windscreens in motor cars, for example, where Britain seems to be

the country which drags its feet. In the limited time available, however, I shall concentrate on only two subjects. First is the question of energy.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the spokesman for the Conservative Front Bench, castigated the Government on the results of the Rome conference. I can remember about a fortnight or three weeks ago, during the last foreign affairs debate, the Government Front Bench pressing the Conservative Front Bench again and again to say whether it would favour Britain pressing for its own place at the Paris energy conference. There was a complete lack of answer. The Conservatives would not state their position, and, therefore, I believe that they are open to some criticism. At the time I said that it was wrong. I believed then that it was wrong, and I still believe that it was wrong for a number of reasons.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Knutsford when he referred to a "Pilgrim's Progress," because there is an element of that which we must never forget. This is a community with an ideal. There is no point in being a community if the case is otherwise. Both Front Benches are fond of saying that we must be practical and that the idealists should have their dreams in little corners; but that is not enough.
If one is in a community and one has a good card, surely one uses it within that community to strengthen one's position rather than as a means of setting oneself apart from that community. In my view, that is almost axiomatic. We are in the Community and have the advantage of being potentially the major oil producer in that Community. Therefore, surely we should seek to be the people who take the lead in evolving Community policy. That is a sensible course. After all, if one is to make a case for what the Government initially sought and quite clearly failed to achieve, it must be based on the idea that somehow we have different aims and objectives from the rest of the Community. Otherwise, why do it? What are those aims? Assuming that we obtained a separate place at the conference in Paris, no one has ever said what the British representative would have said which would have been different from what the Luxembourg representative would have said on behalf


of the Community. Herr Schmidt's response to the Prime Minister's remarks about joining OPEC was understandable and reasonable.
In June the Foreign Secretary said:
There is another important and related field whereby acting together we can promote our common interests in relations between producers and consumers of energy.
We had a great opportunity to take the lead—that is what the right hon. Member for Knutsford was criticising and what I am criticising—in seeking harmonisation not of the petty-fogging tittle tattle that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet rightly criticised, but of a major central issue in formulating a European policy and perhaps in turn building a bridge with OPEC.
Secondly, there is the question of direct elections. With respect, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, not for the first time—of course, I am being opinionated in saying this—displayed his continuing inability to understand the spirit, purpose and point of the Community. It is not that we must do only what is legally laid down. If we lived our lives in that kind of way we would lead a pretty miserable existence.

Mr. Jay: I was not saying that we should merely do what was legally laid down. I was pointing out, in the words of the Treaty, what was legally laid down. Surely it is best to know that.

Mr. Johnston: I agree that it is certainly always best to know where one stands legally. But what the Minister, who has since temporarily departed from our midst, sought to point out to the right hon. Gentleman was that it was not only the words which were important, but what one read into them and what one intended to do in joining the Community.
If we go back to the referendum, which the Minister determinedly refused to do, it was all about the famous Tory terms which were so destructive to this country. The argument was about the current economic situation. No one from the great democratic Labour Party made terms that the process of the democratisation of Europe should be accelerated and that this was what we wanted to see happen. I found it extraordinary then, and I still find it extraordinary, that Mem-

bers of the Labour Party seem willing and anxious to retard the process of democratisation.

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Johnston: If I may be permitted to finish this point, the hon. Gentleman may have added ammunition to throw at me when I give way to him. It seems that in the referendum, the Labour Party, and certain elements within it still, on the one hand, yielded to a British nationalistic argument, but, on the other hand, condemned with the utmost fury the Scottish National Party for using precisely the same arguments on behalf of Scotland as they had been using on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. The two arguments are nationalist and comparable.

Mr. Spearing: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that many hon. Members on this side of the House are not too keen on the Market for reasons of internationalism. Does he agree that just having a vote to an Assembly of indefinite power is not necessarily an advance towards democracy? Does he also agree that the Council of Ministers should issue a list of its decisions? Would not that be immediate and more effective democracy? Does he further agree that going to an Assembly which would gain power would inevitably mean a federal State?

Mr. Johnston: I would welcome a federal State. That is the difference between us. I do not dissent from the hon. Gentleman that it probably would be of value for the Council of Ministers to issue a list of its decisions. However, I do not think that it is practical in all sense for the Council to make its discussions public.

Mr. Spearing: Its decisions.

Mr. Johnston: Its decisions, yes. That is a valid point.
To return to the main argument, because time is always against us, in short I fail to understand the Labour Party's approach to direct elections.
The hon. Member for Crewe interrupted the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet rather critically, as far as I could understand her, on the whole concept of direct elections. It would appear that the hon. Lady prefers preferential


appointment to democratic election. We now have a delegation in Strasbourg which is preferentially appointed, not democratically elected. If she prefers the former to the latter I am very sad.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The only thing which would convert me to any change would be not to have the situation which arose in the Liberal Party when an elected representative—namely, the hon. Gentleman himself—was removed from the so-called European Parliament to be replaced by a Member of another place.

Mr. Johnston:: That the hon. Lady should have the total and unutterable gall to produce that as an argument leaves me virtually speechless—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Good.

Mr. Johnston: —which, for me, is a fairly rare condition. I shall certainly return to that point later. I do not want to use too much time or break off from the argument that I am putting forward.
In our last foreign affairs debate we were told by the Foreign Secretary—indeed, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet agreed—that direct elections were difficult, that we had to be practical—the "in" word is "practical"—and that we should not hurry too much. Now we are suddenly told that there will be direct elections in May 1978.
There are many contradictions in both parties about the whole business of direct elections. It is not only the Labour Party which is open to contradiction. Recently the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose presence is here even if he is not, urged the importance of direct elections. But, as short a time ago as 1973, at Hampton Court, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I hope that our objective of a democratic community is not going to be misdirected by a desire to see direct elections to the European Parliament. I believe that we have so much to achieve, without diverting ourselves from our real objective by an argument on whether we have to have direct elections or indirect elections for our democratic system.
That was quite recent. I should like to know precisely the Conservative Party's position. I have heard the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) expostulate at length in the Strasbourg Assembly, but when he has come back

to this House a quietness has fallen over him. The same arguments have not been put forward, and there has been no evidence of enthusiasm—if enthusiasm is a quality which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet recognises—within his speech either today or, for that matter, in the recent foreign affairs debate.
We also have the Labour Party's view. Fortunately and conveniently, we have the Foreign Secretary's statement quoted in the White Paper. Referring to direct elections, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I have asked that these should be studied. There are difficulties for us as for others. I cannot promise we shall be able to put forward an answer in July.
This is December.
Matters are complicated by devolution of powers to Scotland and to Wales and I cannot promise that we will have an early reply but I do not intend to hold this up.
Splendid.
We will try to be ready in the autumn. I hope you will consider this is reasonable".
The autumn leaves have fallen and the winter is upon us. Yet we are not even at the beginning of an answer. What I find extraordinary is that this autumn we had a White Paper on elections to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in which there was a section on the European Community. Paragraph 87 reads:
The Government must remain responsible for all international relations, including those concerned with our membership of the European Community; no other course would be compatible with political unity".
Does that mean that in June the Government were seriously thinking that the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should have representation in some way in the European institution? There is no other explanation, as far as I can see, for the lack of continuity between these two views.
What, therefore, is the position now, and has it changed? What is now going to happen? As I said, we have the report in The Times—I read The Times as well as The Guardian—in which we are told—and it is the only thing we have to go on—
The first direct elections to the European Parliament will be held in May 1978, with Britain and Denmark being allowed to decide their own dates.
What exactly does that mean? Does that mean that we are to have a different date?
Incidentally, from the point of view of at least one Scottish Member on the Government Benches, he and I know that this will be just about the same date as the elections for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, paradoxically. It could be very awkward in that sense; but never mind.
What is going to happen? The result of direct elections will be an increase in the size of the European Assembly and an increase in the British representation from the present 36 to presumably the 67 recommended in the Patijn Report. Will the difference be made up by appointment? That is the sort of thing that apparently the hon. Member for Crewe would enthusiastically welcome.
The fact is—I return directly to the hon. Lady's intervention—that when the Labour delegation went to Strasbourg, the Liberal representation was reduced from two to one. Because of that, if for no other reason, I still feel very critical of the Government in this matter. The situation was that if we had seen the British delegation appointed in the same proportional way as the West German delegation, for instance, there would have been seven entitled to go, but, in fact, the Liberal representation was cut from two to one because of an unholy and undemocratic alliance between the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is nothing to be proud about in that, nor are there any debating points in it at all.

Mr. William Hamilton: There is one exception to that. When the Liberals had the chance of having only one representative at Strasbourg, they chose to have a peer who represents no one and is probably the most unpopular member in the whole Strasbourg Parliament.

Mr. Johnston: I have a great respect for the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), but a remark of that sort is not particularly worthy of him. If he wishes to make criticism of my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn in personal terms such as those he has used, I think he ought to do it to his face and not in this Chamber in that way.

Mr. William Hamilton: I have done so.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman may well be a master of abuse. I certainly would not try to challenge him in that area. However, perhaps I may answer the question which he put in such an impolite fashion. The answer is that we were put in an impossible position by an act of great unfairness. We decided that because my noble Friend Lord Gladwyn was involved in a long and complicated report, he should continue on there until he had completed it. That was a perfectly reasonable decision to take. What was totally and utterly unreasonable in all of this was the action of the Government. It is all very well that the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, for that matter, should be engaged, as they now both are, in arguing for stronger budgetary powers for the European Assembly. But I would be against giving it stronger powers over anything if it is simply to be a body consisting of people appointed rather than democratically elected.
It is not only the Liberal Party here which is of importance but also the Scottish National Party, the Ulster Unionists and the other Ulster parties, because Europe will not work if minorities are repressed. If minorities are repressed we shall not have a development of harmonious relationships.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), another Member for whom I have the greatest respect, is to speak later in the debate, almost in his position as Leader of the Labour Party delegation. I am sure that he will recall that he was one of the members of a committee of the European Movement which produced an excellent document suggesting ways in which elections could be operated in this country and which came out in favour of a proportional system.
Lastly, we have not said anything about the Tindemans Report. There is no time for me to say anything more about it, but at the end of it all, unless we in this House and in the country at large begin to think and talk in terms of supra-nationalism, the whole great adventure—the "Prilgrim's Progress" of the right hon. Member for Knutsford—will come to nothing. I should deeply regret that, and so would every citizen of this country.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not in the Chamber at present but is here in spirit. I would say to Government Benches that the right hon. Hugh Gaitskell is not here, regrettably, but, my goodness, he is here in spirit on this subject.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that traditionally his speech followed that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), or the other way around. I think that the hon. Member for Inverness will agree that I follow him or he follows me in practically every debate that we have on this subject.
However, one thing I would say about the hon. Gentleman is that I respect him because he sees the logic of the Common Market totally, because he is an out-and-out federalist. I respect him for that, although I disagree with him because that is why I entirely disagree with the Common Market.
Now that the Minister has returned to the Chamber, I should like to deal with one of his remarks. Perhaps he did not mean it in quite the way he said it. He said that we were irrevocably in the Common Market. I think he meant that that was as a result of the referendum. But it is not legally so, because the Government's little paper, during the referendum campaign, said
our continued membership will depend upon the continuing assent of Parliament.
Therefore, it is revocable. It is not irrevocable. I thought that I had better put the Minister right, as he is a Minister in the Foreign Office and is concerned with the Common Market, about the situation in which this country stands vis-à-vis the Market.

Mr. Hattersley: I should like to speculate on the habit that opponents of the Common Market have developed of taking their legalistic quibbles to absolutely European proportions. I should have thought that the tradition of this House and this country was that we looked at these things practically. Looking at the practical reality, does the hon. Gentleman really think that the question might be re-opened, that another

referendum might be held, or that the House might vote to withdraw Britain from the Community?

Mr. Marten: With respect, that was not really the point. I was quoting exactly what the Government said. If what they said is impracticable and is nonsense in terms of what happens in this country, why use that argument in the referendum campaign? Is the referendum result now to be declared null and void because the country was misled? That is something which the hon. Gentleman ought to consider.
I come to a technical question of the procedure in the House for dealing with Market proposals and proposed legislation, which we have not yet got anywhere near right. I am a member of the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee does its best. It refers matters to the House for debate. As we all know, such debates take place at a ridiculous hour of the night. I do not think that they can be taken as a reflection of the will of the House at all, because very often there are only two Back-Bench speeches, which does not reflect the view of the country or the House. Now we have a new Committee which, I understand, is powerless to express an opinion. It can merely note something. It cannot say whether it rejects it or accepts it. That is useless. More and more of the debates on the Floor of the House are "take note" debates, without amendments being made. The House is not exercising its powers, as we were told it would do after we entered the Community. We must look at this matter again. We have not got it right.
I was in Brussels the other day and I came across the question of the driving licence, which we debated in, I think, the summer of 1972 or 1973. I put a motion on the Order Paper then saying that we did not like this proposal and, after a lot of badgering every Thursday afternoon, the Government gave us time to debate it. In the end, they accepted the motion, and that decision went back to Brussels, and resulted in the proposal being withdrawn. I imagine it will be re-submitted in a more sensible way, bearing in mind the decision of this House. We need more debates in which we can actually take decisions.
I see the problem of binding Ministers too closely when they go to negotiate. They must have a certain amount of latitude, but they should be bound within certain limits, and if they want to go further, they should have to report back to this House or to a relevant committee, if we ever establish a committee which is relevant.
I see no reason for the House not having had a statement today on the Rome summit meeting. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are so embarrassed that they have ducked out of making a statement which could have been referred to in this debate. The date of the conference has been known for weeks and the Leader of the House could have put down this debate for tomorrow. The statement could have been made then and we could have debated it afterwards. The Government have ducked out of it and should be severely criticised for doing so.
We must await the statement because we do not know yet whether the proposed European passport is to be compulsory. Am I to be asked to give up my British passport with the Royal crest on the front? I am very proud of it. Why should I be asked to give it up? What purpose is there in it? Surely I can use my passport in France, Germany or anywhere else? Why do I need a new passport with the word "Community" written on the front? This is a classic example of a step towards federalism. I know the Liberal Party will welcome it, but this sort of thing will go on happening until we are locked into a federal State from which we cannot withdraw.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North has adequately dealt with the commitment to direct elections to the European Parliament. May I ask the Minister to get his legal advisers to look at this again? I have seen the correspondence the Foreign Secretary has had with his colleagues, and his arguments are very debatable. I am a lawyer, though not of the eminence of the Foreign Office lawyers, and I try to interpret Acts. I do not see any commitment. How can we be committed to something if we do not know what it is? We do not know what powers the new Assembly will have or how many members there

will be. It is an impossible situation to be committed to something which is unknown.
If we were committed by the Treaty of Rome on 1st January 1973, why did the Government say in the White Paper before the referendum—and this is repeated in the White Paper we are debating today—that at the Heads of Government meeting in Paris last December there was support for the view that elections to the European Assembly was one of their objectives, but that the Prime Minister made clear that the United Kingdom could not take up a position on this proposal before the process of renegotiation had been completed and the results submitted to the people in the referendum? If he could not take up a position before the referendum, he still cannot take up a position. The referendum has not altered the Treaty of Rome one iota, and the Minister of State has said that we were committed by that Treaty.
The White Paper says that any scheme for direct elections will require an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. What right has anyone to require an Act to be passed when Parliament has not discussed or voted on this matter? This is an intolerable attitude. If there are ever direct elections to the European Assembly, it will become a legislative Parliament.
There are two indicators to back up my claim. Paragraph 12 of the communiqué issued after the summit meeting in December 1974 says:
The competence of the European Assembly will be extended, in particular by granting it certain parts in the Community's legislative process.
I cannot imagine that, say, 600 people would go through the bother of getting elected and then just twiddle their thumbs and express opinions without having any power—and power means legislation.
Article 3 of the European Parliament's draft convention on these elections says:
Representatives shall be elected for a term of five years.
Paragraph 2 says:
The five-year legislative period shall begin at the opening of the first session…".
It is clear that this will be a legislative body. If the majority legislating there is Socialist or Left Wing, it will pass


the legislation it wants. As one hon. Member said on the day after the referendum "Now let us make it a Socialist Europe". That is how they will do it. But suppose the country elects a Conservative Government. How will they reverse Socialist legislation imposed on them by the European Parliament? They will not be able to do so. Equally, the situation could apply in reverse where the majority of the European Parliament was Right Wing and, for some curious reason, the electors of this country wanted another Socialist Government.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Never.

Mr. Marten: They might. They are sometimes peculiar.
We must recognise the extreme seriousness of this for our existing system of parliamentary democracy. Once the European Parliament begins to legislate, we are on the road down to a federal State. There can be no denying that. The passport proposal is an indication of what is in the minds of the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Prime Ministers of member countries. It is all part of the same game. Yet in a debate in the European Parliament on 9th July, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), referring to the referendum, said:
it would be a very grave error to assume that was a referendum in favour of a federal Europe…".
So why do we go on down this track towards a federal Europe? Some people may deny that we are doing so, but I wonder if they really believe that. After all, it is the only way the Common Market will ever be able to work.
In Germany last week, with the Select Comittee, I had the clear impression that the Germans intend that the Common Market should develop into a federal State. I was left in no doubt about that. Yet in this country certain people say that the Common Market will not become a federal State. I believe it must. We are wrong to mislead the Germans into thinking that this country will ever agree to becoming part of a federal State. Our leaders on both Front Benches should say firmly that we are in the Common Market because that has been accepted by the referendum, but that we will not be a

federal State or a part of it. That would be a clear statement to the German nation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: . May I point out to my hon. Friend that there is an alternative to a federal consummation, and that it is an alternative which is implicit in the Treaty of Rome? It is that we are on the way to a unitary State, for the Treaty of Rome imposes a legislative supremacy to the institutions of the Community. That is to say, it sets up the sort of relationship which used to exist between the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the subordinate Parliament of Ireland before 1782. While I follow my hon. Friend's argument entirely, therefore, it might not even be the powers of a federal province which remained in the ultimate to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marten: I would go along precisely with what my right hon. Friend says. That is the main reason why I have always opposed our membership of the Common Market.
Before Parliament agreed to direct elections—if it agreed, that is—we should have to know the precise powers that Parliament would exercise and the limitations imposed on those powers. We should need an absolute assurance that there would be no extension of those powers by the European Parliament itself, once it was directly elected, without the consent of each national Parliament.
Direct elections would create certain problems such as how to deal with Berlin and the problem of representation from tiny Luxembourg. If Luxembourg had one member, the Parliament would have to consist of about 700 members, assuming that each constituency in the Community was the same size as Luxembourg. The thought of 700 members commuting into Brussels is an absurdity.
Another problem would concern Belgium over the Walloons and the Flemish, but that is a particular problem for Belgium.
On what day would the elections be held? If we had direct elections, say, one year after our General Election the representation would reflect the swing against the Government which traditionally occurs at that period after a General Election. The representatives


going to Europe would not reflect the feelings of the Government who took office at the last General Election.
Would the Parliament have a second Chamber. I am terrified at the thought of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) sitting in a second Chamber like some senior baron of Europe. I have looked at the idea of a dual mandate. I cannot see members surviving membership of both Parliaments. Physically, it could lead to a breakdown for people.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Does the hon. Member not agree that it is also of considerable importance whether or not parties are proportionately represented from Britain as well as the rest of the Community?

Mr. Marten: It may be, but that is a different question which depends on what is meant by proportional representation. There are so many different variations of it.
If we should agree to direct elections it would inevitably lead to a federal or unitary State, and I can see no escape from that. The Common Market will work only if it ultimately becomes that. We must deal very carefully with this issue and not be taken along on a tide because the Prime Minister agreed to it at the Rome conference.
The real answer to the whole of our problems is to have a much wider grouping of what is really Europe—not this narrow grouping—based on a free trade area bringing in OECD and NATO so that it can grow organically over a much longer time scale into the sort of unity, but not union, which we all want whatever view we take of the future of Europe.

5.56 p.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I welcome this opportunity to speak, not least because those of us who sit in the European Assembly have a special responsibility, which is to express our opinions on what is happening there to our colleagues in the House of Commons. One aspect of the European Parliament which is exceedingly helpful is that I can obtain there information about directives, recommendations and other aspects of Community policy that are not always

made clear to an extremely busy House of Commons which, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made clear, has still not got into correct perspective its procedure for examining the flood of paper which flows from Brussels.
I hope that we may be able to talk frankly in this debate. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) is not here. He displayed an endearing ambivalence. It hardly behoves him to attack the demands of the British Government for a seat at the energy conference and then to delight quite so openly when the Government are unable to sustain their demand in the face of the other EEC nations. I bitterly regret the fact that Britain has given way on an issue so important as the energy problem. The Minister of State said that he did not wish to dwell on the referendum, but the White Paper on the terms of the renegotiation made it perfectly clear that Britain would never give up control of North Sea oil and natural gas, and said so in simple and straightforward terms. Many of us believe that that kind of control will not be achieved if Britain takes a subsidiary place, with someone else putting forward an agreed and general policy. It will come only by pushing for specific interests to protect an issue of fundamental importance to the British people.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) shares with me the responsibility of representing a very outspoken county. He said that in the six-month period that we are discussing the British Government had been responsible for the Community dragging its feet on the question of direct elections. I think that he said that Britain was acting as a brake. I find it increasingly difficult to understand his attitude. When other nations in the European Parliament, quite justifiably, protect their national interests, even to the extent of discussing particular industries and industrial involvements, they are accepted as being wholly European. If the British endeavour to do the same in an honest and straightforward manner they are constantly accused of dragging their feet, of being difficult, of being bad Europeans, and of seeking to wreck the Community.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept a bit of advice. In future he


should not to try to negotiate; he should simply be as intransigent as the representatives of other nations. He should use fiscal policies on our borders to protect our interests, so that we may be taken to the European Court. By that time we shall have had enough time to protect whatever industry is concerned. Perhaps if we adopted that approach we would make better progress.
However, part of the problem in the discussion of matters such as direct elections is that the British are prepared to discuss the matter in their own Parliament, in straightforward terms. This afternoon there has been a great deal of discussion on the question whether or not there is a legal obligation. I do not want to follow too far in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay), although the position he has taken is the accurate one.
I am concerned that we are not yet spelling out precisely what direct elections will mean. This afternoon there has been a great deal of talk about honesty and practicality. If we are practical politicians, do we seriously believe that the British electorate, pushed into a constituency of a size that would be almost inevitable to produce 67 members of a European Parliament, will take an active interest in those elections, will be deeply involved, and will turn out in large numbers to vote? Or do we believe that only a small percentage will vote—perhaps a similar percentage to that which used to vote in some county council elections—and send to the European Parliament representatives who, precisely because they do not have a dual mandate, do not represent the people in an accurate and honest fashion?
European parliamentarians will not be more conscious of the real feelings of a democratic society if they hold a dual mandate than if they are simply sent there as representatives of one stratum of British society. We must resist attempts to remove from national parliaments the responsibility and power to make decisions that will affect the EEC while their representatives in the European Parliament are putting forward those ideas as a reflection of the views of the British people.
I should resist any attempt to move towards a proportional representation

system. I am sorry to have to say that I believe that many of the newspapers and the quite sincere politicians who are pushing direct elections to the European Parliament are doing so because they regard it as a means of opening the way to proportional representation in Great Britain. They do so because they can see a a political advantage to themselves. This is a quite defensible attitude, but they should be honest about it. They should make it clear—as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) does when he talks about a federal Europe—that their reason for seeking this kind of proportional representation is that under our existing parliamentary system they are unable to get enough Members into the House of Commons.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Mr. Russell Johnston rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This will be the second interruption from the hon. Gentleman, who has already addressed the House for 25 minutes.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Lady will concede that it is quite democratic to seek to ensure that all points of view are represented in an Assembly, in proportion to the views of the people in the country?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Yes, precisely as long as one makes it quite clear, in the arguments one is putting forward, that one's interests are not only those of the European Parliament but extend to a much wider sphere, and that one is concerned about the political situation in this country. If that were so, and if the constant barrage of propaganda that is now beginning to pour out of some politically motivated—dare I say?—editors made it as clear as that, the debate would be very different from the one that has taken place so far. After all, it is precisely in the detailed work that takes place in Europe that the parliamentarians have a specific rôle to play.
I was entertained to hear that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet did not believe that much had happened in the past six months. Those of us who sit on the committees of the European Parliament believe that there is a great deal of movement on all sorts of fronts—but never, I am sorry to say, on fundamental matters such as agricultural policy.
Indeed, I have introduced the Agriculture Committee to a new, dirty word. I have only to say "consumer" to produce a gasp of horror around the table, because that word is hardly ever heard in any other place.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Lady does not agree, perhaps she can tell me an area in which, in the past six months, the consumer has been given protection of any kind that was not available before.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Lady is very selective in her choice of dates. Had it not been for the EEC we should have been paying vastly more for sugar, due to the desperate world shortage of that commodity. However, she chooses to leave that figure out of account.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady cannot lead me off with old temptations such as that. She knows very well that 70 per cent. of the budget of the EEC is spent on agriculture, and she knows equally well that the European Parliament, in which she and I sit, has virtually no control over 70 per cent. of that budget and will not obtain that control while the EEC progresses in its present manner.
Unless there are some fundamental changes, it is no use discussing the Regional Development Fund. If one of the major Governments of the EEC say that they are not prepared to agree to any extension of finance for projects such as the Regional Development Fund, it is no use us, as a Socialist group, deploring the fact that the Social Fund is not large enough to help more people be retrained. One of the Commissioner's added up very neatly for me the problem of the EEC when, in Brussels yesterday, speaking on the question of employment, he said that it was not possible to do anything that was positive but it was possible to stop national Governments doing anything that was negative. His definition of "negative" was "protecting the interests of their own people in specific industries". That is not how I see my job, as a representative, or my future, either in this Parliament or any other.
If there is to be any realism in our discussion of the EEC there must be far tighter control over the day-to-day

directives and decision-making processes of the Commission. Those who wax most eloquent in this House about the over-officered local government in this country might find a fruitful area of examination if they asked how many multinational civil servants were employed at various levels to produce—if I may use the term—tiny eggs out of an elephant. If there is doubt about that, I point out that those of us who sit on committees of the European Parliament are fascinated by the way in which, like the tide, civil servants flow in and out, according to which item the committee is discussing. We can instance highly hilarious situations when we have spent an hour and a half discussing a particular item on the agenda—an item which, if costed in terms of units of account, would mean that our discussion has cost more than if it had been decided by the Commission in the first place.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a remarkable fact that, in total, the Community consists of about 14,000 civil servants, in comparison with over 500,000 in this country?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not disagree with the figure that the hon. Gentleman has given. When I see how many that is—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We cannot see them.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady should have rather more contact with both her own constituency and Government Departments. She would then see civil servants without any difficulty whatever. If the figure is 14,000 now, what will it be at the end of 10 years, particularly if we allow Commission institutions to grow at an even faster rate?
Those who take part in the European Parliament have a responsibility to return to the House of Commons and make it clear to other hon. Members exactly what is happening. We never have time to discuss the implications of, for example, pollution policy, the battle which is coming on tachographs, or the considerable changes which are to come in many areas of industry. Unless we tackle those subjects, and unless those of us who have a dual mandate are able to learn the views of all our colleagues, it will be a question not of whether direct elections to a


European Parliament will produce changes but of whether the European institutions bear any relation whatever to the ordinary man in the street.
We are elected through a democratic system because people care about democracy. We must not forgo those responsibilities lightly, but we shall do so if we set up yet another tier, another bureaucracy, and another totally unrepresentative Assembly elsewhere.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Jim Spicer: At first, I thought that I should find it difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), but in many ways I agree with her. It is an unfortunate accident of timing that this debate takes place the very day after the Rome summit meeting, because we have naturally turned away from what I regard as the main object of this debate, that is, for us to report back to the House and discuss events in the European Parliament over the past six months. I hope, therefore, that if I do just that and stick to one area which is of interest to me, something worth while will result.
I serve on the Public Health and Environment Committee of the European Assembly. I had not dealt with these subjects in great detail before I went to the European Parliament, but I have learned a lot in the past few months. I have found a great deal of the work which passes through that Committee to be extremely worth while, and I believe that it will bear fruit in a better life for the peoples of the Community, irrespective of their countries.
There are, however, some rather disturbing elements within that committee and within the Commission, of which the House should take careful note. In my view, irrespective of the Government in power, this country has been in the van of improvements in the environment. Indeed, we can be proud of what we have achieved over the past 20 years. We do not, therefore, need lessons from anyone on the way in which we should look after and improve our environment.
The problem which I see us facing within the Community is the imposition of arbitrary standards which will be laid down for all Community countries, irrespective of whether those standards are

required. I sense within the Commission an inability to take account of climatic differences or local considerations, and I am sorry to say that very often what is masked as an environment question and directive has its beginning in either political or economic circumstances. I deplore that. Within the Public Health and Environment Committee, the question of the bettering of the environment should take pride of place, rather than political or economic considerations.
In our committee—we must try to bring this to the notice of the Commission as much as we can—we should proceed only by comparing like with like. We must work for a sensible pattern of standards for the environment throughout the Community. What possible reason can there be for comparing, for example, the Mediterranean with the North Sea, or the Rhine with the Thames or the Tees—or, to come to more local matters, for joining in the same consideration Spaghetti Junction and a roundabout outside Dorchester? Of course, one cannot do that. It is no good saying that the situation around Spaghetti Junction is impossible, so we must impose a standard right across the board and take everybody to the level of pollution control that is applied to Spaghetti Junction. We run into deep water if we do that, and we reach decisions which are impossible for any member of the Community to carry forward for any length of time.
In my view, the Community, especially against the background of our present economic difficulties, should concentrate first and foremost on dealing with known problems on which we can reach a degree of acceptance that there is a risk to the environment and public health. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) mentioned motor car windscreens. Here is an obvious hazard on which we should all be looking for a common standard and working closely towards it.
An example of going the other way is the decision on the lead content of petrol. This has now been passed through the European Parliament and has been accepted by the vast majority of people within the Parliament, and it is now in the form of a directive which will eventually go forward to the Council of Ministers for acceptance. It will impose a common standard on the people of this country and of the Community.
Speaking on this subject on 11th April this year—I quote his words to give the background and explain the story—the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment said:
If lead is removed from petrol, more oil is needed to produce the same degree of efficiency. For balance of payments reasons the Government were not able to proceed with the next stage of the programme of reduction from 0·55 to 0·40 grammes per litre. Such a reduction would cost us £20 million per annum, provided that at current market prices all the other byproducts from crude oil could be sold.
Those figures would, of course, have risen as a result of the rise in oil prices. The hon. Gentleman went on:
I am told that it is far from likely that, if more oil were imported to be processed, we should be able to sell off all the byproducts. If that were the case, the cost to the country of the further reduction would be about £60 million. Therefore, between £20 million and £60 million is the best estimate I can give of the cost of the further reduction of the lead content in petrol."—[Official Report, 11th April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 1636.]
That is a low estimate. Estimates that I have had from the oil industry are far higher. However, I should have accepted that reduction and the consequent cost if it had been proved to be necessary for the health of our people and the environment in which we live. All that the Commission says is:
Whereas since in the present state of scientific knowledge there is no evidence to prove that existing concentrations of lead in the atmosphere do not constitute a danger to public health "—
and so on, taking that as the basis for action.
That is a ludicrous way to work. One could apply it almost anywhere. As I said in the Assembly only the other day, proceeding on that basis we should now be thinking of banning boats from Loch Ness because, certainly at present, there is no firm evidence to show that there is not a Loch Ness monster, and if we banned boats now we should be guarding against the possibility that one might one day emerge from the depths and overturn the boats if they were still there. It is a ridiculous state of affairs, and we ought not to tolerate it.
There is always a clash between what is right for the environment and the economic cost. I know that other Governments—certainly the German Government—take the view that they have to balance

these matters very nicely and, if it is regarded as in the interests of the Community and of the environment to take on the cost, they balance the economic consequences very carefully. On the question of lead content of petrol, my view, and the view of our group in the European Parliament, was that the case had not been proved, and we therefore opposed the directive, but I am sorry to say that we did not have the support of others within the Parliament.
The hon. Lady spoke of the way in which the Socialist Group at the European Parliament operates. I fully acknowledge that hon. Members here are part of your group, but I believe that there are certain matters on which one should stand apart from one's group, especially in decisions of this kind, which are wrong for this country and are not necessary within the Community I hope that in the months to come, as your Socialist Group settles down within the European Parliament, you will feel able to take a more independent line.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall do my best, but the hon. Gentleman must address the House in the customary way.

Mr. Spicer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is right for us to judge each case on its merits and not to approach it on the diktat of a particular group within the European Assembly.
Many important decisions lie ahead of us. Tomorrow, the Public Health and Environment Committee will be discussing the problems of titanium dioxide—an important matter. From that discussion could come the closure of British factories. That could come about purely and simply because of the pollution that exists in the Mediterranean. I believe that the motivation behind the directive and the report that we shall discuss stems from a Mediterranean problem that is not applicable, for example, to the north-east of Britain. The economic consequences of allowing the directive to go forward and to receive the support of the European Assembly could be disastrous. From discussing the overall lead content of air we could go on and on.
Above all, we must not accept harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation within Britain or within the European


Assembly. If we do that we shall bring the Assembly into disrepute. That would not help the people of the Community as we wish to help them.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. George Reid: I start with the simple proposition that as power within the European Community grows at the centre there should be a corresponding growth of power at the periphery. It is significant that Lord Kilbrandon, having sat through five long and hard years on the Constitution Commission, has said that it is his considered opinion that the new constitutional relationship for Scotland will be between Edinburgh and Brussels, with Westminster withering away.
Within the past week the Government have produced a mouse of a constitutional White Paper on devolution. The White Paper specifically excludes the Scottish Assembly from having its own links with the institutions of the European Communities. It argues, with gratifying frankness, that
no other course would be compatible with political unity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), in her maiden speech in the European Parliament, recalled asking European officials what réle they suggested for Scotland. She received the answer,
the leader of the downtrodden regions of Europe".
That will not do. With equally gratifying logic, the Commission recognises that the only way Scotland can get representation across the board is by first achieving independence—in other words, by the Nine becoming Ten, with the tenth member being Scotland. I hope that this is the path which Scotland, given adequate guarantees on oil and fish, will follow over the next decade. In saying that, I trust that Scotland will get terms sufficient to stay in.
I am in good company because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has dared the Labour Party to accept full Scottish independence within the Community. How he expects to achieve that without simultaneously fracturing the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom is a curious exercise in both logic and semantics. Even the Conservatives in one of their more

lucid moments have proposed a Scottish European Minister. Of course, in terms of devolution, the Conservatives now have a Thatcher position, a Heath position, a Rifkind position, a Taylor position, a Fletcher position and a Berridge position. I suppose that they are bound to be right at least part of the time.
In Scotland we need a separate Treasury to get indigenous growth in the economy. Likewise, we need separate representation in the Community both to play our full part in European affairs and to safeguard our essential interests, especially oil and fish. That does not mean that we seek nineteenth century nation-State sovereignty. There will be many constraints in terms of our strategic position, our geographical position and our trading links in a self-governing Scotland, just as there are now constraints on the United Kingdom.
In that sense, with Westminster having ceded sovereignty to Brussels, does the word "separatism" have any real meaning within the framework of the European Communities? That is an especially relevant question given the free movement of men and materials throughout the EEC. I ask the Treasury Bench and the Conservative Opposition to make it clear whether "separatism" has any meaning within the EEC. I have asked Ministers that question before, and, after an embarrassed and rather pregnant silence, I have been told that as the Government have ruled out separatism there is no point in discussing the matter. But that answer will not do today.
Both the Minister and his Opposition shadow know full well that their Scottish colleagues have been painting black pictures of Customs posts at the border, of the night mail being stopped and searched at Gretna and of Scots being refused a passport to visit their granny in Blackpool. English Members may be surprised, but that is the trivial, injudicious and invidious level of debate to which the Scots have been subjected in the past year. Let the Minister be more open tonight; let him admit that central decision-making in London has turned Scotland into a rather dull provincial society. Let him admit that it is time we Scots were outward-looking again, and that we should take our traditional place in the councils of Europe. In that sense, how can one be an internationalist unless


one is a nationalist first? I look forward to hearing a clear definition of what separatism means within Europe.
I add a word of warning. The Minister should not make comparisons between Scotland and the "other regions" of Europe. The SNP has much sympathy for the Bretons, the Frisians, the Basques, the Occitanians and the Corsicans, though we deplore the methods that their wilder men employ. But there is a great difference in that they are minorities within their respective national boundaries. The Scots, representing the oldest nation in Europe within present boundaries, are an overwhelming majority in their own land.
The Scots were the first people to enter a common market in 1707, but they retained the essential ingredients of national life in their own institutions—a separate and European legal system, a separate Church, a separate educational system and a separate system of administration. If Luxembourg, with half the population of Edinburgh, can be represented at the top EEC table, why not the people of Scotland? If Denmark and Eire are there, why not Scotland? Why cannot Scotland sit alongside its friends from England and Wales as an equal British State, linked in a confederation similar to the Nordic and Benelux unions? These matters will be decided at the next General Election. Let me remind Ministers that in Scots law it is only the people of Scotland who are sovereign.
What is to happen in the meantime? In the past week we have had the White Paper. The SNP will now attempt to build on what devolution comes down to us and to strengthen the Assembly Bill. The Scottish Assembly will have some powers over Scots' health, education, transport, and a little power over agriculture and fisheries. Inevitably that means that Scottish Assemblymen will have a substantial interest in EEC decisions and in the growing stream of regulations from Brussels pertaining to those areas of Government. The EEC dimension will be an inescapable and integral part of the work of almost all Assembly committees. The Lord President should recognise that fact now and should take steps to ensure that Scottish participation in EEC decision-making is as complete as possible.
The most important step is to get Scottish representation on the Council of Ministers. Even within the present system, Scotland has a separate role. On five occasions so far Scots Ministers have attended Council meetings, the most obvious ministerial involvement being at Lord Advocate level, the separate Scots legal system necessitating a separate Scottish voice.
Although these concessions go beyond the token representation given to the German länder, it is the intention of the SNP to ensure that Scotland is represented as part of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Ministers on all occasions and that the Ministers involved should be Assembly Ministers. To facilitate this involvement, the Assembly Government should include a Minister for European Community Affairs, accompanied at Brussels, where necessary, by appropriate Scots departmental Ministers. The Assembly should also be able to appoint an official who would be attached to the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative's Office and who should have ambassadorial rank.
In addition to having at watching brief over developments and the opportunity to speak on Scotland's behalf, the Minister for European Community Affairs should have a trigger on the United Kingdom veto, to the extent that the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would not ratify any decision of the Council of Ministers until he had first secured his Scottish colleague's assent.
When the Assembly Bill finally comes before the House, my hon. Friends and I will seek to ensure that there is Scottish representation on such bodies as the Economic and Social Committee, the ECSC Consultative Committee and the Scientific and Technical Committee. Nominations for those bodies would tend to be made by institutions such as the STUC and the Scottish CBI but would be subject to Assembly sponsorship. As many of those areas where EEC secondary legislation is necessary are likely to impinge on the Assembly, it is logical for the implementation of such measures to be devolved, and that could be done by a fairly simple amendment to the European Communities Act 1972. I therefore hope that the Assembly will be empowered to set up its own sessional


committee on European secondary legislation, perhaps in time extending its scope to review the implications of continuing United Kingdom legislation as it affects Scottish interests.
Finally, I look for an Assembly international affairs liaison committee which would have broad responsibility for protecting Scottish interests at international level, keeping a specific watching brief on United Kingdom foreign policy and preparing the ground for a final settlement of Scotland's relationship with the EEC.
Must the Government endure political disaster, similar to that in Bo'ness and Bishopbriggs last night, with Labour families, as one commentator said,
crumbling away into tributaries of the self-government torrent
before they revise their view of Scotland's place in the world? Is no rational conversion possible? Surely, an Assembly active in EEC affairs and capable of negotiating and developing Scotland's terms would allow a rational choice to be made.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I am the third member of the European Assembly to be called in the debate. It is a happy accident that the debate falls on a day on which most members of the European Assembly do not have duties on the other side of the water. It does not always happen that way. We can only continue to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that, so far as is conceivably possible, it is important for him to recognise that European debates in the House should not conflict with discussions in Europe in which we would wish to be involved.
Now that I have listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) is not here to give her impressions of the European Parliament.

Mr. Reid: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Scotland had representation similar to that of Eire and Denmark it would have 10 members in the European Parliament?

Mr. William Hamilton: Where is the hon. Lady?

Mr. Barnett: I am sorry that I gave way. I hoped that the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire would tell us that his hon. Friend was engaged in one of the committees of the European Parliament. I am disappointed not to have the pleasure of hearing her distinctive contribution to the debate.

Mr. William Hamilton: She might have been sorely embarrassed in seeking to defend her vote for Franco Spain.

Mr. Barnett: I was not aware that the hon. Lady had cast such a vote. It reflects rather ill on the Scottish National Party.
I listened with the closest interest to the speech made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who, unfortunately, is not now present. I am sure that he will not mind my repeating something that he said to me. He was a little concerned that I might have changed my position, as expressed during the referendum campaign, but I was able to reassure him when he questioned me about it. The result of the referendum and my experience as a member of the European Assembly have in no way altered the opinion which I expressed during the referendum campaign. If anything, it has confirmed me in the prejudice that I expressed. The experience of closer contact with the Commission and European institutions generally has confirmed the opinions that I expressed in the campaign and have long held.
In the light of the misrepresentation that has been made against people who expressed anti-Market opinions during the campaign, I wish to state the assumptions upon which I base my opposition to our continued membership of the EEC and to explain exactly what they are.
We were gravely slandered when we were described as narrow nationalists. I have never been a narow nationalist. During the whole of my adult political life I have been a strong internationalist. This persistent attack may have been a vulgar calumny of people like myself—especially Labour Members—who feel strongly on international issues.
Upon thinking further about it, and in the light of my experience in the European Parliament, I have come to a conclusion on the question why so many people persistently referred to those who


took up an anti-Market line as narrow nationalists. The reason is that the conflict which occurs within the European Parliament is a conflict between integration and nationalism, or national self-interest. That is certainly a feature of the European Parliament and it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is also a feature of the European committees and of the bargains that are reached.
Ever since its inception, the Community has proceeded on the basis that economic integration would lead inevitably and inexorably to political integration. That is the principle upon which the Community has proceeded. That was very much in the mind of Jean Monnet, years ago. That idea is a dangerous fallacy—a fallacy which is all too well illustrated in today's debate.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and others referred to the petty interference and regulation which has had the effect of driving public opinion against the very integration that the pro-Europeans seek. It is as though, with its concentration on economic matters, the Community has gone out of its way to annoy and irritate rather than to inspire and develop an interest in internationalism.
Reference has also been made to the constant desire for harmonisation. A recent example is sheep meat, a commodity that is predominantly produced and eaten in this country. The Community insists on grasping a wider area of Community interest in matters which are not of Community concern and should not be matters of Community control. That has had a disastrous effect on the Community and is one reason why it has not progressed as far as it should. It is a reason why the White Paper is such a low-key document. It may even be one reason behind the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), which was on such a low key. It may also be one of the reasons for the attitude of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) who spoke in such disappointed terms about the progress of the Community.
I believe that there is another argument, which I used repeatedly in the

referendum campaign and which worries me even more now that I see the European Parliament in action and the Community at much closer quarters than I did before the referendum. My objective always has been that there should be a wider and wider area of international co-operation. I was very interested in the altercation which took place between the hon. Member for Banbury and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on the question whether the European idea was a federal or a unitary one. I believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South was correct. The kind of developments going on are towards a unitary State, which I find very dangerous. I do not want to see a unitary State, and I am quite sure that the members of the Scottish National Party are not aware of developments. They believe that they will have all kinds of reserve powers, but that is not at all what is taking place.
Like the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), I am a federalist. I am a world federalist. Many years ago I listened with respect to those pro-Europeans who argued that the Community could be the beginning of a wider federal development. But one only has to remember the situation in this country, when proposal after proposal was made that we should become a member of the Community, to see the sort of difficulties which arise. The longer the Community has existed, the more directives, regulations and harmonisation has taken place and the more difficult it has become for new accessions to occur.
We have had appalling difficulties. We had to enter the Community as it was, with hardly any serious concessions being made to our special interests. We had to enter the Community as it was, at the stage at which we had to join. I pity poor Greece, and Turkey, and, perhaps one day in the future, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Spain and Portugal, if they wish to enter the Community, because, year by year, the Commission and the Council of Ministers are making it increasingly difficult for new States to join. That is of crucial importance, because those who tell us that they are good Europeans ought to accept that the European Community means nothing if it is not going to be able to take in the whole of Europe.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member is deceiving himself and the House. New members must join the Community as it is, but in future each will be given a transitional period in which to adapt itself to the Community as it will then become. This is important. The hon. Member is sliding over it.

Mr. Barnett: We have been granted a transitional period, but it has no respect to our basic interest. The hon. Lady may not recognise it, but the fact that over 70 per cent. of the resources of the European budget is spent on the common agricultural policy seems to fly in the face of this country's interests. I do not see any likelihood of change. I hope that the hon. Lady is right and that there will be a fundamental change in the whole of the Community as a consequence of our accession, but there is little evidence of that happening in the near future.
Of course, other countries can expect a transitional period. I hope that they will be able to expect something of that kind. But the Community does not seem to recognise that when it grows in size, in order to be a real Community serving the needs of all nations and all the people in them it must attempt to represent the whole of their interests and not deny the interests of its newest accessions.
This is an important point about the Community, because each of its regulations is a brick in a wall that excludes other possible members of the Community. If I had to choose between a unitary and a federal State I would choose a federal State, because many decisions made in Brussels have no business to be made there. We live in an age in which we appreciate the need to ensure that decisions are made, wherever possible, as closely as possible to the people affected by them.
One of the possible benefits of the European idea is that there should be the greatest possible diversity, rather than harmonisation. The whole history of our civilisation has been one of diversity, and it would be a tragedy for those who support the idea of the Community to allow it to go much further along the road to harmonisation or standardisation. The sad thing about the Community is the degree to which it has concentrated on the minutiae of its own internal econo-

mic affairs. The future success of the Community lies in its external relations. Last week I attended the preparatory meeting of the Lomé Consultative Assembly, at which there were delegates from 46 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, as well as representatives of the European Parliament. It was largely an informal session. The proper consultative assembly cannot hope to come into existence until ratification of the Lomé Convention is complete. Nevertheless, one can see the development of something in the future in which the Community will have a real rôle to play—its relationship with the continent of Africa, the whole of the Caribbean and many countries in the Pacific—because it has a common interest in and responsibility towards countries and areas which are less affluent than those in the Community.
The contacts which the Community is beginning to establish with Latin America and other parts of the world indicate that there is a useful réle for such a Community, but possibly in the loosest possible way. Only by moving towards a loose federation, which is the kind of step we should take, shall we move towards the kind of association that can be extended, and which other countries can easily join.
This brings me to the issue of direct elections to the European Parliament. I believe that direct elections are likely to mislead our people into believing that they are obtaining what many people describe as a European Parliament which, somehow, can check on the Council of Ministers, and to which the Council of Ministers will be responsible. That may be the case at some stage in the future, but it is not the case now. Members of the Council of Ministers are responsible to their own national Parliaments. When a British Minister goes to the Council of Ministers it is to us in this House that he is responsible. It would serve only to mislead the electorate of this country or any other European country to have direct elections to the European Parliament, because it would allow them to believe that they were electing people whose job was the European job as opposed to having responsibility solely for British matters in this Parliament.
That, I believe, is the greatest danger. If we, in this country, and people throughout Europe decide that a federal


Europe is wanted, with a federal Government, a federal court and a federal Parliament, that is one thing, but we ought to make that decision clearly. We ought to debate it, discuss it, produce a constitution, and then vote on it in our separate Parliaments, before moving towards a federal system. If we are not doing that, let us deceive ourselves no longer. Let us cut out the kinds of things that we have had in the past and deal with the practical and realistic situation.
The European Assembly has an important job to do, but let us not mislead ourselves by idle dream talk about the sort of institution that we would like one day to see without recognising that an elected assembly can be meaningful only in terms of a federal constitution, upon which we, as British people and as European people, must make a definitive decision.

6.52 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The period of seven months covered by this White Paper—the period since the Budget—has been one of deepening gloom about the British economy, with high interest rates, rising unemployment, a falling exchange rate and serious anxiety about many of our problem companies. This period has brought home to the great majority of the people the unhappy truth that the British economy can no longer flourish on the basis of a nation State, particularly since the virtual break-up of the old sterling area. But we have to admit that there are serious obstacles in the way of conceiving the European Economic Community, as it is at present, as the obvious point of departure for a new period of growth and expansion in this country.
The EEC has all but completed its first phase, namely, the creation of a customs union; but it is sadly lacking in a sense of direction as to where it will go next. There is virtually no unity on capital account and practically no serious programme of development for creating a Community capital market.
The floating rates that have taken the place of the old Bretton Woods structure have certainly worked very much better than many people foresaw, but the floating rates structure has given

rise to unpredictable risks to traders. Though the agreement at Rambouillet may lead on to a more stable exchange rate system for the Community we still have to wait and see.
It also has to be pointed out that our commitment to the free trade area has thrown up the over-valuation of the pound at the time of the Smithsonian Agreement, and indeed subsequently. Just at this time no one can be too confident that the pound will even be able to hold the exchange rate that it has reached in the last few days.
I believe that major structural changes are now needed in the EEC, particularly since we have virtually had to abandon the old programme of advance towards economic and monetary union by a gradual narrowing of the margins and the locking together of the currencies, on the lines recommended by the Werner Report.
Many people here and elsewhere thought at the time that the Werner recommendations were too ambitious, and it is now obvious that that approach is getting us nowhere. This is the problem which the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemans, has been asked to examine, and we look forward to his paper on European Union some time in the next few weeks. I hope that it will contain practical recommendations that can actually be implemented, and not only cloudy ideals that we can regard as an ultimate objective, with no particular relevance to the problems of the present time.
I hope, too, that Mr. Tindemans will make recommendations that not only concern central banks and Governments but have a real meaning at ordinary level for the individual citizens of the Community. The European Community as conceived in the Rome Treaty is very much a matter for Governments and banks and national and European institutions. It does not really touch the man or woman in the street.
In the coming weeks I hope to have the opportunity, in the European Parliament, of discussing the series of resolutions which I have ventured to put forward, mainly in my capacity as rapporteur for economic and monetary union in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.
On this vexed subject of economic and monetary union, it seems obvious that a new approach is needed. It is no good simply reflecting that the Werner Plan has not achieved any very useful result. We need to think of something else. Let us start from the acceptance of the fact that the national paper currencies will not unite in the foreseeable future. National Governments and central banks will insist on keeping their autonomy. If they do not, their habits of mind will simply be changed by the democratic forces within the member States. It is no good a Government deciding to lock its currency to the Deutschemark, perhaps or to a unit of account, only to find that they have lost popularity and gone out of power as a result. If we are to build some kind of economic and monetary union we shall have to try some altogether different road.
I believe that the increasing body of support for the idea of the alternative currency, or the "Europa", or the parallel currency—call it what we will—is pointing us tentatively in the right direction. I believe that there would be common ground if we said that the European Community needs a central reference point of unshakable integrity and certainty in monetary affairs, and that none of the paper currencies, not even the Deutschemark, is stable enough from the point of view of long-term transactions. I do not think that the basket of European Community currencies brought together to make the new Community unit of account will command much confidence in the long run.
My recommendations are, first, that we should establish a European cost of living index. In every country there exists an alternative currency already, in the form of a cost of living index which we use for comparison with the value of the paper currency from day to day. It is valuable that the Community is about to produce comparative data on the cost of living in the different member countries. If we could establish an agreed means of building up a European cost of living index it would be a helpful beginning. From that we could go on to establish a European standard of value.
A currency can have two functions. It can be a store of value or a standard of

value, or both. I do not think that we can establish a European store of value all at once. That must come at a third stage, which may be quite a long way off; but I think it would be useful for long-term transactions to establish a European standard of value.
I shall give one example of what I mean. If a man starts his career in Britain, completes it in Belgium and finally retires in Italy, his pension rights should be linked to some kind of European cost of living index that gives him some degree of security that they will hold their value.
I hope that Mr. Tindemans will examine the various recommendations that have been made for launching a Europa, or at any rate a European central standard of value, and that this will be a new approach to economic and monetary union which will be more successful than the Werner Plan.
I should like now to touch on what I call the European social contract. I believe that it will become increasingly necessary to think in terms of harmonisation of the levels of social security benefits. In this country we have a particular interest in this subject because our levels of social benefit, for the most part, are so far behind those of the other members of the Community.
I should like to think that European citizenship guaranteed a minimum standard of living. In the first instance, it would be necessary merely to push up those benefits, in member countries, which were obviously anomalous, so that we did not have, as we do at the moment, a sharp change in the levels of family allowances for anyone moving from one Community country to another. I hope that in the not-too-distant future there will be an amalgamation of the national social insurance funds. That would be a gesture towards economic and monetary union which would have a direct relevance to the voters and bring genuine advantages to the man and woman in the street. I do not suggest that there should not be national levels of social benefit, regional schemes or company benefits; but I should like to see the establishment of a basic European social security scheme, supported by direct taxation and paid for from a central Community fund.
It is not enough to give people a European passport and expect them to feel that they now belong to a great new society. There must be tangible benefits. Equally, there must be tangible commitments. I should like to see a relationship of obligation and entitlement between individual citizens and the Community, so that people could begin to measure in cash terms the benefits of belonging to the EEC.
What I recommend here has a direct bearing on the reform of the common agricultural policy. The motives behind the policy obviously are right, namely, to give some degree of security and dignity to people in agricultural communities, many of whom still live at something very near the poverty line. The original concept was that by making sure that the price of what they produced never fell below a certain point they could be confident of always enjoying a certain standard of life. But it was a naive and ill-conceived concept from the start and it is obvious that it will have to be changed. Some form of direct income support for low-income families will have to be introduced in the Community.
On the Continent, for the most part it is in the agricultural communities that there is an obvious need for direct income support, even for those in full-time work. But in the towns there is also a need for a benefit which will help people, especially those with families, who are on very low wages. The kind of European social contract that I envisage could begin to supplement the incomes of families in a way that would take the burden off the CAP, thus making it possible to reduce agricultural prices without forcing tens of thousands of people into destitution, or off the land altogether.
There would also be implications for regional policy if we could arrange a system of redistribution of income between rich and poor areas at personal level. Up till now, all the schemes that we have seen for regional distribution have had an institutional character, and have been rather unconvincing. If we could move towards a redistribution of income which would automatically tend to put funds in areas in which there are the largest accumulations of poor people, it would have a beneficial effect—albeit a "watering-can" effect. But perhaps

a "watering-can" effect is just what we need if we want a thousand new flowers to bloom in the European economy.
Finally, I wish to touch on the question of institutional reform. We need to create a truly democratic community. Why should we not have direct elections? I have listened to several speeches today inveighing against the idea of direct elections, but I find it difficult to understand what the speakers fear. The European Assembly is not likely to become very strong while it consists only of nominated members of national Parliaments. If we trust the people, they, in turn, will begin to trust the European institutions. Initially, there might not be a very large turnout of voters, but when the European Parliament began to have real contact with the electors, it would grow in strength and we would have a two-way movement of ideas between voters and members which could only be beneficial.
The Council of Ministers is becoming a sort of Community Upper House, and it certainly shares the powers of Upper Houses to enforce delay. But the Parliament has not yet found its footing, and direct elections will be necessary if it is to establish itself. I feel that the European constitution is rather like that of Britain in the fifteenth century, with the House of Lords having virtually all the power and the House of Commons very timid, not sure even of its procedure and very unsure of its power.
Still on the subject of institutional reform, I wish to join the call for a single meeting place for the European Parliament, with suitable facilities for members and easy facilities for those who assist the Parliament's work. In my view, it should be in Brussels, and the move to establish a central meeting place for the Parliament should not be delayed. The ideal solution would be to get a new building ready by 1978, when we move ahead to direct elections.
The present weakness of the Community is its lack of any sense of direction. We have completed the first stage—the setting up of the customs union. Now we are preparing for a new stage of European Union, which is still very imprecisely defined. If we try to stay where we are, we as a country will not reap the possible benefits of our membership nor make the contribution of which we are capable.

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that nine other hon. Members have sought to catch my eye and hope to succeed between now and 9.20 when, I understand, the winding-up speeches are to begin.

7.7 p.m.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: I intend to confine my remarks to the two wide areas dealt with in the White Paper. The first is the Community's relationship with the world outside the member States, and the second is the more domestic policies of the EEC which touch upon us at home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) mentioned that early last week some of us went to Luxembourg to talk with our counterparts from the 46 ACP countries. We came together there in a reasonably relaxed atmosphere. One of my tasks was to draft the rules of procedure for the new parliamentary institutions which will govern our future discussion of the Lomé Convention. There was a considerable degree of unanimity, and it was gratifying to me that, before we got to that stage, this House had at least ratified the Lomé Convention.
But I make one point here which I made last week in another place. It is that Government endorsement, parliamentary support and the pressure which we as parliamentarians put on the Government to do that little bit more are not enough. It is not enough simply to say that we have now ratified and have done our job. The important feature is the provision of the industrial co-operation and the transfer of technology to our partners in the developing world. To me, an essential ingredient of that involvement is the involvement of our social partners towards that end.
Within all our societies there are institutions and groups which are not to be ignored. There are people with great skills, resources and experience. If we mean what we say, our social partners in the trade unions, the employers' organisations and all these people who have contributions to make must be involved in this new strategy. It is only by harnessing the resources at our disposal and by making practical use of them that we shall breathe life into the cold print of these conventions.
Lomé is not only valuable in itself and in what it attempts to do, but it is also valuable for setting possible precedents. If the Nine can reach agreement throughout the world with 46 other countries, surely we have a basis and a platform for wider agreements with the poorest nations.
In the short time that I have been a member of the European Parliament I have had to recognise that within the Nine there is what can be described only as a hard-line attitude towards further assistance from the Community to developing nations. Many of my colleagues in the European Assembly have made it clear not only that do we hope for such attitudes to be modified, but that we shall work towards bringing about a change in attitudes.
Few people would deny that today there is a total interdependence throughout the world. Mention is made in the White Paper of a new relationship with Canada. Prior to the referendum the Canadian Prime Minister had talks in Brussels with the EEC and sought a type of contractual relationship. As a member of the European Parliament, I was involved in talks with Canadian Members of Parliament, and they showed a considerable willingness for closer economic and commercial co-operation which went beyond the bounds of bilateral trade arrangements and into the areas of joint ventures into development, research, the exchange of technology and the supply of raw materials to Europe, to our mutual advantage.
Obviously, there are problems to be overcome. Some member Governments—certainly the British and French Governments—have historical and traditional trading links with Canada which mean a great deal to them. To interpose a new Community relationship while these historical and traditional ties remain is no easy task.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who leads the Parliamentary Labour Party delegation to the European Parliament, will be winding up the debate for the Government. It would be unfair to ask him, as I was about to ask the Minister, if he would explain a little more fully that section of the White Paper which deals with the negotiations with Canada and tell us how far these


contractual links with the Community, on a Canadian basis, have advanced.
I turn to matters closer to home and to the activities and adminstration of the Social Fund. I certainly welcome the increased allocation. This enlargement is an important step in the move towards making the Community concerned with developments which can be of direct benefit to people whether they live in West Bromwich or Westphalia. However, those policies must be relevant to the daily lives and needs of our people, otherwise they have little importance.
In looking at it from the point of view of those applying for assistance from the Social Fund, the procedure seems to be unnecessarily long drawn out and to contain a great deal of red tape, for not only must projects be channelled through the appropriate Government Department but they must have the blessing and endorsement of that Department before they can be considered for assistance by the Commission.
In his earlier remarks my right hon. Friend said—I think I quote him correctly—that he would like to see more accountability by Community institutions to those whom they serve. I agree with him. If we mean to make the Community a living entity and to involve our society directly in its activities, there must be direct communication between the people and organisations in the regions and the Commission itself. I recognise that Government Departments, of whatever political view, like to exercise authority. However, surely methods can be found of encouraging local authorities, regional development bodies and registered charities to have direct communication with the appropriate Regional and Social Fund Committees within the Commission in such a way that they present and argue their own case. That is one method of achieving greater accountability by the Community to those whom it serves.
I respect your comments Mr. Speaker, about time, and, therefore, I shall turn to the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy. There have been many debates in this House and in other places about agriculture and the technicalities of the common agricultural policy. However, few debates seem to approach the

subject from the consumer's point of view. Even so, one simple fact we might bear in mind is that while engineers, postmen, clerks and politicians make up percentages of the Community, the consumers form 100 per cent. of the Community. Within the Community consumer involvement is relatively new and pathetically inadequate.
The Consumer Consultative Committee was established a little more than 12 months ago. Its task is to provide the Commission with information either on its own initiative or at the request of the Commission, but it has no influence whatever on decision-making. It cannot mount a pressure group or run a publicity campaign against decisions taken. That has to be done by associations within the member States. Further, the Economic and Social Committee is the instrument by which consumers can vent their concern about decisions, but they can do so only after decisions have been made. Moreover, that Committee has only six consumer representatives out of a total membership of about 150.
The consumer involvement is no longer limited to questions of hygiene and the quality of food. Recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection participated for the first time—I hope it will not be the last—in a meeting of Agricultural Ministers. I suggested in the European Parliament that the appointment of such Ministers should be made by other member States in the hope of increasing participation at this level.
There is need for much greater flexibility. We have recently seen a certain amount of shift in the orientation of the common agricultural policy from a policy which had as its prime purpose the protection of the producer to one which took a more balanced view of the interests of the consumer. I wish to see that shift continue so that consumers can become involved in the decision-making concerning food production targets, storage policy, the cost of such a policy and the priority of recipients when it comes to the disposal of surpluses. That is most important. In other words, there should be opportunity to participate at all levels.
The White Paper clearly states that any scheme for direct elections would require an Act of this Parliament, and that is


absolutely right. Indeed, I have no quarrel with that. However, I must be honest and say that in my view the day will come when we shall have direct elections. It is for that reason that I have sought, by my remarks, a greater involvement for our people—in whatever walk of life they may be—in the institutions of the Community. I welcome the debate as a means of attempting to find practical solutions to the real problems within our Community and our growing relationships with those outside.

7.19 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: It was good to hear from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) the authentic note of internationalism. It is a note that we do not hear as often as we should like from the Labour Party. I had supposed that I should see upon the Order Paper in this House, especially from those hon. Members who have been complaining loudly about the way that the Chrysler Corporation is treating its workers in this country, a well-supported motion regretting the decision of the nationally owned British Leyland Company to dismiss its Italian workers in the Innocenti works in Italy.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) laid claim—I fully respect his claim—to be an internationalist and said that those who opposed British membership of the Community during the campaign did so on international grounds. However, I wonder whether he would feel able to sustain that line in view of the crude appeal to internationalism which was made by most Labour anti-Marketeers during the referendum campaign, and most notably by the then Secretary of State for Trade, who conducted a very able campaign against British membership of the EEC based solely on appeals to British internationalism.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Mr. Guy Barnett rose—

Sir A. Meyer: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I want to be brief. I have not in any way traduced what he said. I think it better that I should go on and complete my speech.

Mr. Marten: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir A. Meyer: No. My hon. Friend has already had a very long innings, and enough is enough.
If internationalism no longer constitutes a prime motor in the Labour Party, the one doctrine to which it attaches overriding importance is that of the mandate. If ever a Government and party had a mandate, it was—unlike the 28 per cent. of electors who put this Government into office—the 67 per cent. who voted "Yes" to Britain remaining within the Community. I do not claim that that 67 per cent. constituted a mandate for Britain to participate in a fully federal Europe, though I make no secret of the fact that that is what I would like to see. But that 67 per cent. constituted an overwhelming mandate for Britain to play a constructive part in the European Community of which we are now a permament member.
After the humiliating fiasco of the British demand for separate representation at the oil talks—having tabled a motion at an early stage deploring that demand, I feel qualified to say that—it is not now easy to maintain that Her Majesty's Government are playing a constructive role. There is certainly nothing in the dismally boring document before us for today's debate to contradict the overwheming impression of still-reluctant Members being dragged to the European table by the overwhelming vote of the people and threatening to kick the table over if they do not get what they want.
By insisting, as we brutally do, on getting every one of our short-term interests, we imperil our ability to defend our long-term interests. That was only too evident over the oil business. I submit that it is equally evident in the attitude which the Government have adopted towards the aircraft industry. If ever there was an insistence on the long-term interests of this country coinciding with European requirements, the aircraft industry provided it. Whereas a nationalist British Aircraft Corporation cannot conceivably survive in the conditions of the worldwide aircaft industry of today, there is manifestly an opportunity for a Europe-based aircraft industry to compete on reasonably level terms with the American giants. By nationalising the aircraft industry on a purely British basis, the Government have tragically missed a European opportunity.
As I said, by insisting on our short-term interests we imperil our long-term interests, which are to secure a Community with true democratic control and prosperity fairly spread throughout the whole area.
I speak with deep feeling on this matter as the representative of an area where unemployment is getting out of control, which is equipped with out-of-date industries, and badly needs a major expansion of the Community's regional aid programme.
I observe the Government forfeiting their chance of securing a better regional aid programme and a common agricultural policy better adapted to the needs of our people because of their insistence on other purely short-term advantages, thereby debarring themselves from working in partnership with either the French or the Germans to secure our long-term interests.
If Ministers simply cannot nerve themselves to explain to the electors the need for some kind of sacrifice of short-term interests to preserve our long-term abiding interests, what conceivable pretext can they offer for not making a contribution to the one area where every other European country confidently expected Britain to make a major contribution and where no material sacrifice whatever is called for—namely, democratic control over the Community's institutions? I simply do not understand what is holding the Government back. No British interests are at stake here. There is just the natural reluctance—the immobility which is built into all political institutions—to face issues.
On Wednesday last week I put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary—it was not reached; it received a Written Answer—asking
what proposals have been put forward by Her Majesty's Government for improving democratic control of the institutions of the EEC?
The Answer was:
Her Majesty's Government are seeking to improve financial control in the Community".
As I understand it, the main object of improving financial control is to use it as a means of gaining influence over the evolution of policies.
The reply continued:
and have proposed that the European Assembly should play a more active and effective role."—[Official Report. 26th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 206.]
Yet they are not prepared to take active steps to equip the Assembly to play that kind of rôle.
I do not want to appear to be concentrating my fire on the Minister of State. I know that nobody more than he has fought for the European cause within the Department. We on this side admire his staunchness in this cause under fire from both sides. I hope that he will recognise that, in appearing to attack him, I am in fact attacking the Prime Minister for his continued insistence on making concessions to an anti-European extreme Left element which has lost all credibility in this House and in the country. If the Prime Minister would at least stand up and proclaim what he must by now believe—that Britain's future lies in making a positive contribution to a living European Community—I believe that he would be astounded by the response from both sides of this House and throughout the country.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I shall refer to one or two of the points that the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) has touched on, but I want to make some general points before doing that.
If there is one thing on which we can all agree it is that in the last 30 years, since the end of the war, successive national Governments of all political persuasions have signally failed to solve our problems in isolation from the rest of Europe or the rest of the world. At the same time, we can say that in the last 20 years, whenever either of the major political parties, be it the Labour Party or the Tory Party, has obtained power, it has seen solutions to our problems lying in entry to a wider community. The Labour Government did so between 1964 and 1970. The previous Conservative Government tried before then, and the succeeding Conservative Government, from 1970 to 1974, got us into Europe. The Labour Government decided, by means of a referendum, to stay in.
Therefore, one can assume that when politicians in this country are faced with the realities of power, they understand


better that the only solution to solving our problems, be they economic, social, or whatever, is to get into a bigger context.
The bigger context that we had immediately available to us was, first, EFTA. I remember the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) negotiating EFTA at that time. I think I am right in that recollection. That was a precursor to entry into the European Community. That has now occurred.
In historical perspective it is much too early to ascertain whether that judgment was right or wrong. All I am prepared to say at present is that both major political parties have sought this as a means of helping to solve the problems which we could not solve in national isolation. It may well prove that we were wrong in that decision. It is much too early to judge.
Certainly as a relatively new member of the European Parliament, one's ideology and political philosophy is strained a little when one sees that Parliament in practice. Nevertheless, here we have what I think is most inspiring about it—and there is not very much—namely, the ability to talk to politicians from Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Holland and even Luxembourg, and to understand what they are driving at.
Every one of those countries was occupied during the war. They are inspired by an idealism that is very often singularly absent from our talks. In this context we talk too much about what we shall get out of the EEC rather than what we can put into it. We talk in terms of material things rather than in terms of preventing another world war. What does it matter if the price of butter or the cost of living rises by 20 per cent. between now and 1976 if by keeping within this association, allowing it to evolve and playing our part in its evolution, we prevent the recurrence of world war? That seems to be the essence of our internationalism, to which I hope every hon. Member subscribes.
In recent months Britain has been cast as the nigger in the European woodpile. We have been accused of lack of cooperation on the question of oil and on other matters, such as direct elections. There is an arguable position for our Government to take up. We have no need

to be apologetic about these things. The other national States are still basically national States. They have a degree of idealism. However, when it came to the point, the French did not hesitate to take measures to protect their wine industry from cheap Italian wine, and the French have been taken to court on that account. One can cite other instances where German, French, Italian or British national interests have conflicted with the grander European concept and where the national interest has prevailed.
That will happen for a long time. We must simply accept that it will happen as the Community evolves. In the same way, in this House the Scottish National Party and some Welsh Members advocate, quite properly and sincerely from their point of view, their own nationalistic aspirations. They are perfectly entitled to do that. I do not think that their separation will solve anything for them in the United Kingdom context.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Reid rose—

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman made his speech and walked out. He has only just returned to the Chamber. A members of his party should have been present—the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), who represents his party in Europe. The hon. Gentleman talked about participation. The least that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn might have done would be to put in a courtesy appearance for the debate. She has been singularly absent throughout. She might have thought fit to justify her vote in support of General Franco and his Fascist regime. If the hon. Gentleman wants facts, let me tell him that that is what is happening in Europe.
That brings me directly to a point to which I wanted to refer—the triviality of so much of what takes place in the Assembly. I have now been there for three or four months and I can recall only three or four memorable debates. The first took place when we had hardly got there, and that was a debate on political union. Then there was a debate on the oil crisis, involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. We had another debate on Spain. Those were about the only debates of real substance. The other debates have been what we would call statutory instrument debates. However, there is no reason why we should not


put this matter right, and why the Assembly should not evolve into something better.
That brings me directly to the point raised by the hon. Member for Flint, West about the Prime Minister's speech—a speech that had very little coverage in this country—on the inauguration of a public accounts committee in Europe. The implications of that speech were very great. The Prime Minister was spelling out, in his own inimitable way, the fact that we were in Europe to stay, because he wanted to propose some machinery to control the vast expenditure that takes place in the Community, not least—indeed, in too large a measure—on the common agricultural policy, over which we as parliamentarians have no control whatever, either here or in Europe.
The Prime Minister indicated to me, by that speech, that he was intending to raise this question at the summit conference in Rome, which ended yesterday. I should like the Minister who is to reply to the debate to indicate whether the Prime Minister raised this question, particularly with the Germans, because I think that this matter was initiated by the German Federal Chancellor. Will the Minister indicate what response the Prime Minister got on this matter? That seems to be singularly important. It is extremely important from our point of view to get, in the Community, the kind of control of public expenditure which we have here—although recent revelations may suggest that we are not all that good at it, either. At any rate, over about 100 years we have built up a system that is as good as any in the world, and probably better than most. That is all that one can say for it. However, one can learn and develop that kind of control in Europe, as we have developed it for over a century here.
Similary, several hon. Members have spoken as if it were somehow obscene or undesirable to pursue the concept of a European regional policy. I remember that when the present Secretary of State for Energy was very much a pro-European he said that the only way in which one can protect the little man from the big multinational company is to provide a big multinational political counterpart. That argument is as pertinent today

as it was then. If we are to prevent the big multinational companies from blackmailing small national States—be it Scotland, England, Wales, Holland, Denmark, or any other—we must, by having a common regional policy in Europe, prevent them from playing the one off against the other.
At a recent meeting of the Regional Policy Committee, of which I am a member, I persuaded the Committee to visit Scotland and Lancashire. Its members will be coming in the spring of next year. This is part of the educative process. Ordinary men and women in this country are affected, and will continue to be affected, by decisions taken in Europe—not in Edinburgh or Westminster, but in Brussels. That being so, we had better have adequate representation in Brussels before these decisions are taken and not afterwards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who has had to leave the Chamber owing to a previous engagement, is strongly in favour of a common energy policy in Europe. We shall be the greatest energy producers in the Community. The coal reserves in England are vastly greater than the oil reserves found in Scotland, but together they put us in a very powerful position to model the common energy policy in Europe. That is how we should be thinking. We should not be wanting to hold on to the oil that happens to be near our coast, or the coal that happens to be under our county, and saying "To hell with the rest of the Community". That is counter to the ideals that hon. Members on this side and, I presume, some hon. Members opposite hold dear.
Direct elections are a highly desirable, democratic procedure but the nuts and bolts of the system will be extremely difficult to work out. It is no good pretending that this can be done overnight. One of the great attributes of our democratic system is the fairly close relationship between an hon. Member and his electors. In a European Parliament there would be, perhaps, five members representing the whole of Scotland, and it would be very difficult to maintain this relationship. On the question of the timetable, I do not think that our European partners understand the tremendous constitutional implications of the devolution White Paper, the debates on which we


are soon to embark upon. That will be the biggest constitutional upheaval in this country for hundreds of years and it will take a long time to get it through the House. It is bound to make the question of direct elections in Europe that much more difficult to work out.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) talked about the European passport as if it was something terrible. I have one British and one European passport in my pocket. I do not give a damn if I lose the British passport. It means not very much to me. I support the sentiments expressed by Ernest Bevin, as Foreign Secretary, in 1946, when he looked forward to the day when he could go from Victoria Station to anywhere in the world without a passport. The new European passport is a small step in that direction. They can have my British passport back in Petty France any time they like. I hope that this is the approach that the House will take during the next generation. We are building for our children and their children. It is no good continuing to fight the pre-referendum campaign. Whether we like it or not, the British people have decided that we must solve our problems in a bigger political and economic context than we have tried so far. That was the clear message they gave us, and we would be denying their faith if we sought to undo what they decided should be done.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise for the fact that, for unavoidable reasons, I had to miss the first part of this debate. I wish to look at the implications of EEC membership on Wales over the period covered in the White Paper. In the referendum campaign, my party opposed continued membership, but now that the result in Wales is quite clear and the people in Wales have shown that they wish to remain part of the EEC, we have accepted that decision and its implications and are now concentrating on ensuring for Wales the fullest possible role in the Community while we remain part of that institution.
We are looking for our own place at the top table of the Community, our own team on the Council of Ministers, our own guaranteed numbers in the European Parliament on the same formula as Denmark and Ireland, our own representa-

tives on important committees like that dealing with social and economic matters, and our own Commissioners.
The future structure of Europe is very much under debate now, and this is touched on in several parts of the White Paper and has been referred to in a number of speeches. Much of the discussion revolves around various models—whether Europe should be a unitary centralised State or a decentralised State which might be termed federal or confederal in nature. If the European State is to be viable it must lead to the break-up of 19th century States which were developed for different purposes in a different age and cannot be sustained in the future.
The other side of the same coin is the emergence of Wales and Scotland as self-governing communities in the EEC existing side by side with a developed structure on a European level. Some people say this is a contradiction. I do not believe it is. I think it is inevitable. If Europe is to have stability in future there must be a growing role for the natural communities within the EEC.
The structure of the future of Europe will depend, to a large extent, on the possibility of direct elections to the European Parliament. My party has grave fears about these elections. We acknowledge the superficial democracy attached to the argument, but we have had 36 hon. Members representing Wales in this Chamber for many years, and with 600 other hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom there have been occasions when, despite the fact that all Welsh Members were united, they were thwarted by the majority here. One example was the drowning of the Tryweryn Valley and the village of A Capel Celyn in Merioneth.
Having direct elections to the European Parliament will not necessarily give the Community democratic control over its future. Dictatorship by a 51 per cent. of a 49 per cent. is not necessarily democracy and in any structure for Europe there must be the right for communities which will be in a minority within the greater Europe to have safeguards to ensure that their own interests are protected to the maximum possible extent. Having four Welsh Members in the European Parliament will not be enough to safeguard these interests. If


there is an elected European Parliament it should have transferred to it the minimum of powers, and only those powers which are essential for co-ordination on a European level. We believe that it is necessary for that Parliament to act with the concurrence and agreement of all the national Parliaments and not to overrule them. There is a need for a weighting in favour of the smaller countries, a contentious issue in mainland Europe, and it may be necessary to develop a second Chamber at a different level, a sort of House of Representatives, where the individual communities could have direct representation in order to counter-balance the effects of population within the directly elected model.
We gave evidence to Mr. Tindemans on his visit to the United Kingdom earlier this year. It was on 2nd July that we outlined our proposals to him in Cardiff. We said that we saw the model of Europe developing as a confederal one. We said:
Plaid Cymru feels strongly that there exists a positive alternative to the development of another centralised state in Western Europe. That alternative is to create a partnership of self-governing European nations, in no way subordinate to one another. This partnership could take the form of a European Confederation whose purpose would be to maintain free trade and encourage economic and cultural development throughout the Community, and the co-ordination of effective regional policies to counter-balance adverse effects of free trade.
So in criticising some possible developments within the EEC we do not want to give the impression that we are against any development of the European model.
Let me turn now to the relationship of the Welsh Assembly to the Community institutions. We deplore that in the document being discussed today the summary showed, in dealing with representation from Westminster and from the British Government at meetings of the Council of Ministers in Europe, that of the 54 meetings not one has been attended by a representative of the Welsh Office. There have been representations on odd occasions from Scotland, but never from Wales, and many of the subjects have been of vital importance to Wales. The Welsh Assembly must have the right to representation in the deputations and teams going on behalf of the United King-

dom during that period before we in Wales assume the full right to determine our own future.
We need the right for the Welsh Assembly to have access to the European Investment Bank. Many projects will need to be developed in Wales which are essential to the economic infrastructure and which have a European dimension. For example, there is the A5 road, the artery linking Ireland through to continental Europe. Roads will come under our own National Assembly, but there will be no provision, according to last week's White Paper, for the Assembly to have direct access to the European Investment Bank and the EEC institutions. It is a little strange in view of last week's White Paper to read the speech by the Foreign Secretary which is outlined on page 20, in which he said:
I cannot promise we shall be able to put forward an answer
that is in relation to the elections
by July. Matters are complicated by the devolution of powers to Scotland and to Wales and I cannot promise…an early reply, but I do not intend to hold this up.
I cannot see, with the White Paper which has promised us no right of access to the EEC, how this topic could have crept into the discussion unless at some stage we were to have had that right, but that it was subsequently cancelled.
We hope that in the long-term development of the EEC there will be room for the emergence of natural communities. There are many such groups in Europe, some of them hitting the headlines, such as the Basques, the Bretons, the Flemish and the Bavarians, all of whom may have a réle to play in the future European structure. Take the situation in France, for example. There is at present growing free movement of people between all the EEC countries. In view of that, it is essential to harmonise much more on elementary human justice and human rights than harmonising on the size of eggs. We should, therefore, send to France the message that we deplore the imprisonment of Yann Fouéré and that we disagree with the right to hold him for six months without trial. This is indefensible, and if we are part of the EEC structure side by side with the French Government, we have the right to point out that they have their obligations too. If M. Giscard


d'Estaing comes to the United Kingdom in the next few months I hope that we shall make clear to him the way in which we hold his Government in contempt for such action.
The situation in Spain, with the absence of democratic institutions, leads one to the view that the time is far from ripe for that country to take its place within the EEC. There must be a much greater development of freedom there. The time may be ripe for those actively engaged in EEC bodies to press for a European charter of rights for ethnic communities. It is time for someone to take a lead in this matter.
I turn now to regional policy. Given the ravages of the free movement of capital and trade in the EEC, there is every danger of things getting out of hand. There is a growing disparity between the poorer and richer regions within the EEC. There is a fund of £150 million over three years to deal with regional development. That is chicken-feed. The Industry Act 1972 gave Wales in the last financial year £40 million and more, which is considerably more than we shall get from the EEC fund. Even so, that £40 million was nothing like sufficient to overcome our problems. We need a much stronger policy of regional redistribution if we are to find an effective answer.
Take the old county of Caernarvonshire, where the personal income per capita in 1972 was only 55 per cent. of the United Kingdom level. I wonder whether EEC policies will have any significant effect on that, or whether they will have the effect we have seen in the last few weeks in my home town of Caernarvon, where one factory has closed down because its products can be made more economically in Belgium. If there is to be a meaningful EEC regional policy, it must be stronger than the existing policy.
We need a guarantee that EEC funds will be additional to funds channelled by the Government to regional development, and that the money will not pass from one pocket to another without giving additional benefit to areas like Wales. There must be regional plans throughout the EEC, fitting into a regional category. This is essential if regional disparities are to be minimised. The EEC must

also be much more responsive to the problems of areas like Wales, to the problems of the steel industry, agriculture and coal, which are in danger of being adversely affected rather than improved by the EEC.
My hon. Friends and I regard monetary union with great fear. The expereince suffered by Denmark, which has stoked up its unemployment in an attempt to keep its currency within the "snake" under pressure from Germany, is an example of why we should keep as clear of monetary union as we can. There may be an argument for more currencies rather than fewer in order to provide greater flexibility within the EEC.
There is one reference in the document to the VAT situation. Perhaps I may issue a warning here. If VAT is put on food and if more rates are introduced there could well be a reaction from people in Wales and, I suspect, from elsewhere in these islands. The Government must bear that in mind.
Wales is a historic European nation. It is European by language and culture as well as by religion. At many times in our history we have been European in trade as well. Over the next few years we shall have a full measure of self-government. As the EEC is now in the melting pot, I put it to the Government that they should let the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies have links from the start with EEC bodies so that when we become fully self-governing countries, and if our people wish us to stay within the European Economic Community, we shall have a firm footing on which to build.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), the spokesman for Plaid Cymru, at least endorsed the central idea of Wales being a member of the Community. I assume, by extension, that he endorses the idea of the United Kingdom being a member. I am sure that all hon. Member will welcome that statement. He mentioned difficulties that might be particular to Wales in the future. Other hon. Members have alluded to and described difficulties that apply to the whole country.
Whatever future divisions or semi-divisionalisations may grow up in this


country, depending on how the devolution proposals develop, the more I think about it the more I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that devolution will make European direct elections that much more difficult to carry out within a certain period of time. There are many other reasons why I, as an English Member, am anxious about some of the putative implications of the devolution exercise, especially as it affects Scotland and, to a lesser extent, Wales.
As an hon. Member who has spoken in favour of direct elections, I hope that the natural and understandable anxieties of the hon. Member for Fife, Central will not materialise, because there will be a will in the House and in the British body politic to prevent that occurring.
Undoubtedly many hon. Members wish to refer to the many subjects mentioned in the White Paper. However, time prevents that and there are still hon. Members who wish to speak, so I shall concentrate on two topics mentioned in the White Paper and on one topic that is outside it, in the overall context of the future development of Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked why we were so scared of European direct elections. I strongly agree with him. Just what is it that a combination of little Englanders and other Labour Members, but not those who have spoken recently, are anxious about—the idea of direct elections per se?
All the ensuing developments will take place after those direct elections have occurred for the first time. There is no chance that any institutional development in the European Parliament can occur before, partly because of the time period envisaged and partly, but more importantly, because of the way in which the Council of Ministers will, as far as one can assess, encourage the idea of direct elections taking place in or after 1978, under the official formula, with Great Britain—I do not know whether the summit statement is accurate or not—apparently allowed to have a special timetable of its own, together with Denmark. We shall need to examine that in greater detail later on. However, in so doing the quid pro quo on the Council's part will be that the examination, development

and construction of those future increased powers for the European Parliament will take place after the first set of direct elections.
As more than a reasonably enthusiastic European, I do not object to that principle. It is right for us to get going with the first set of direct elections at the outset, and then for that directly-elected Parliament—with the confidence and self-assurance that can come only from the dramatic and exciting new universal suffrage that will emanate from the entire European Community—to take a lead as a new body in a dramatic historical context and at the same time develop its own powers. It is at that subsequent stage, which may be in the early 1980s, that the Council of Ministers will presumably engage upon a tussle and conflict with the new institution about just how legislative and, indeed, executive—that is very important—powers will be shared out in this dramatic and unique new venture.
Everyone tends to make the basic mistake of assuming that a developing and dynamic set of European institutions—a unique, new community which is unlike any other in the world—can be compared with what has happened elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said that in due course it would veer towards federalism. That is complete nonsense. To suggest that it will become federalist in due course is a massive piece of self-deception, unless, of course, the will is there so to develop.
This is a new construction. At least this time when the Minister of State spoke, not only did he repeat the pretty strong assertions that were made last week in Community statements by the Government that direct elections were a Treaty commitment; he went further and reinforced that commitment. He implied that whereas previously he had said that it would take 10 years to have direct elections, because the organisation was so complicated—he said that they might start in 1978–79—now it would be nice to start in 1978, the target date, if possible. I want the Government to say more than that. I want them to say that they will start the constitutional, physical and other preparations immediately, so that at long last this exercise can commence.
It is not right for the United Kingdom to establish a separate timetable of its


own, partly because, in practical terms, it would be unworkable and at the very least wholly undesirable in the context of what the European Parliament has proposed about the modalities of direct elections, and partly because it would be, for our part, a breach of faith in the wider European context in terms of the philosophy of Europe and the will of the other member States to go ahead, apparently without undue delay, in accordance with the summit target.
Let us have an early debate about direct elections to the European Parliament and all those aspects contained within that complicated idea. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has definitely promised one. Let us go beyond that and start the Boundaries Commission exercise. At least let there be a provisional exercise to consider, with computer assistance—which nowadays is inevitable—just how those European constituencies should be constructed. According to the draft convention presented to the European Parliament earlier this year we shall have 67 seats, but if the majority of hon. Members deem another number to be suitable, so be it. A vast amount of work has to be done, and that is why it should be started now.
There is also the constitutional aspect to be considered. The treaty commitment idea can be argued cleverly by lawyers on both sides. I happen to believe in that idea and argue that it was known before the referendum and accepted as a fundamental commitment, and that therefore, we should proceed. However, there are many ways in which this is handled by this national legislature. It may need a new treaty dealing with direct elections, as I believe some experts in the Foreign Service believe. It may need just a substantial piece of legislation in this House, or a less substantial piece of legislation, not quite, but almost, approaching merely technical amendment to the Representation of the People Act, the electoral disqualification Acts and so on.
Whatever the ranges or the sum total of those arguments by both sides, let us make a start now. If we do not, we shall regret it later. If we get off to a bad start on that score, it could affect the atmospherics of that first directly-elected Parliament, or at least the British contingent in it, in a way that I would be extremely loth to see.
Therefore, pragmatically and reasonably, without being excessively controversial or dangerous, one could assume that fairly soon after those elections the new European Parliament, meeting, I imagine, in continuous session and—let us be frank about these crude matters—with its members presumably drawing a reasonable international salary, would not wish to be a debating chamber or a continuous seminar on the virtues of titanium dioxide pollution control, which all too often tends to be a feature of the European Parliament.
Worthy and honourable though that may be, let the Parliament politicise itself in the real party-political structure sense. If the energy and will is there, if the educational effort prior to the elections has been substantial, and if the Government machine in the proper sense of the term has been supporting all that effort to explain and to inform the public, the public will identify much more quickly with their new European members of Parliament and with their European constituency, even if it be a constituency of 500,000 or 600,000. The United States does it on that scale, though, admittedly, after a much longer history, and there is no reason why the British, one of the most sophisticated political publics, should not grasp the idea. We do them a disservice by suggesting how complicated it will be for them, and how remote, that we shall have only a 15 per cent. total turnout, and so on. I do not believe that it will be so if the work is done now.
I repeat my hope that we shall not be pusillanimous in our approach to what happens between now and those first elections, and in what we do in our procedures here. Let us think again about the way in which the House organises its own scrutinising procedure for European instruments—so often called secondary legislation, and referred to as such in the White Paper, yet in most cases, as we all know, in fact primary legislative instruments emanating from the Commission on behalf of the Council of Ministers.
This subject is referred to, albeit briefly, in the White Paper, yet it is, I think, one of the most important thematic elements for the House to consider in terms of its existence as a national Parliament in the EEC context. Today is a


historic day, in the sense that our new European Committee has started to function along the Committee Corridor, under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). It considered an esoteric—indeed, incomprehensible—subject, so it was a very calm Committee with no fireworks and no trouble. But I do not think that that Committee will continue to be trouble-free for long, unless the Government reconsider the importance of what was pressed on them from both sides last week and the week before, namely, that it will be essential for that Committee to be empowered to make substantive motions and amending motions in due course if our scrutiny procedure is to be realistic.
I turn now to a matter that is not referred to in the White Paper, but I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will nevertheless, in all justice, accept that I am not out of order. There is a central issue which is not really being debated in the European Council—perhaps I am mistaken there, and have not properly understood the accounts, and we have yet to hear from the Prime Minister—in the European Parliament or in the national Parliaments. Perhaps this lack of debate stems from the gigantic nature of the subject, or perhaps we do not discuss it because we are all immensely depressed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said that the European Community had gone too slowly for his liking, that it had lost the will and basic native energy to proceed as he wishes, and that he hoped that that energy would return. That brings me to the central point that I wish to make—that until the European Committee seizes on the seemingly intractable problem of restoring a rate of economic growth to the whole of the EEC, including the outlying areas to which the hon. Member for Caernarvon referred, the political will of the Community, in the fullest sense, will not return.
We may institute sophisticated propping-up devices for outlying regions, and so on—I do not use that adjective in any perjorative sense—but that will be no substitute for the Community saying that

part of its ideology, transcending narrower party-political viewpoints, has been, and has been acknowledged by all its citizens to be, the establishment of an area of prosperity and of regular expansion. Other industrialised countries have adopted the same kind of approach, and so have their citizens. The European Community must engage itself on that task.
I make no narrow party point when I say that until we are all collectively, and primarily in the European Parliament—perhaps that is the most appropriate place—engaged on this task, bearing in mind the awful problems involved, true progress and the real will to achieve it will not return. We know that European industry as a whole is running far below capacity, and far below the likely resurgence of putative future consumer demand and demand as a whole. The public sectors—not only in this country, although we are the worst example—are regarded at least by many people as too large in relation to total resources.
The problem of returning to a growth path for the Community is colossal. I know that it is easy and glib for me to say that in my closing sentences, but that is the key, and it all fits in with future political developments and the future assurance of the Community. As the hon. Member for Fife, Central said, there is an inclination on the part of one country to cling on to some national asset and be almost loth to discuss it with the other member States. All these things fit into that gross and tangible lack of confidence which all of us feel as a result of—I was about to say "the deep economic crisis" in Europe, but I think that "deepening economic crisis" would be more accurate.
There is, therefore, an obligation on politicians throughout the Community as well as here, which we should start to take on now. It will fit in very well with the time scale for direct elections.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. John Evans: (Newtown): As one of the new members of the European Parliament, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, although I have thought it a curious debate in many ways since those of us who have spoken are members of the European Parliament. Perhaps we should have got together. We


could have had a discussion in the aeroplane taking us to the European Parliament next week, when we could have debated the various issues which the House is debating today. It does not follow from that, however, that there is no interest in the House or in the country in what the future holds for Britain and for our society in Europe.
I am a new member in the sense of being a new Member of Parliament and also being the only one among our 1974 intake to go to the European Parliament. What struck me most forcibly when I first arrived in that building at Strasbourg was the language problem, for I speak only English. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of how wonderful it was to be able to talk to an Italian, a Dutchman, a Dane, a German or a Frenchman. Indeed it is, if the other individual speaks one's own language or if an interpreter is handy.
In my view, the time has come to do something about a common language. Indeed, that time may well be long past, I feel that the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament should discuss the language question. There should have been agreement on a common European language some time ago. Once that had been agreed, every nation which did not speak that common language would have adopted it in its education programme as the second language for its children to be taught.
We must not forget that, although we talk about bringing nations together, it is essential that we bring people together, and if people cannot speak to one another in the same language they will never understand one another. This is an important question to be borne in mind in all our European debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) is in a wonderful position in this respect since she speaks four or five languages and is able to converse freely and fluently with almost any member of the European Parliament. For my part, however, unless I have an interpreter I am lucky if I can speak to 20 per cent.—and that is discounting the British delegation.

Mr. Wigley: And the Welsh?

Mr. Evans: Most of the Welsh speak English.
The other depressing experience—it still depresses me—was to see the enormous torrent of documents which descends upon us from the European Parliament. An incredible amount of "bumph" is sent to us on almost every subject which the Commission or the parliamentarians discuss. I used to wonder how many trees were chopped down to make all the paper. I am beginning to wonder now how many forests are being chopped down.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said earlier, it is essential that we sort out our priorities in the European Parliament, and especially the various topics that we choose to discuss. Some of the topics which we spend our time discussing in the European Parliament are such that I doubt whether we could get half a dozen Members to serve on a Statutory Instruments Committee to consider them. It is essential that that matter is sorted out very quickly if the Parliament is to have any credibility.
Another important matter is that we cannot agree on a common site for the European Parliament. At enormous expense the Parliament moves on alternate months from Strasbourg to Luxembourg. The staff has to lug huge boxes, packed with documents between the two cities. To compound the problem, when we have our committee meetings we invariably hold them in Brussels. Far from being an organisation that can reach unanimity on many subjects, we cannot reach unanimity on a site.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the British. The Conservative Government decided to go to the Parliament two years ago and the British Labour delegaation decided to join six months ago. The European Parliament has been in existence for about 17 years. From what I am led to believe, it is still no nearer a solution as to where the Parliament should be sited.
I have no intention of continuing the referendum debate, but I am bound to say that during the referendum campaign some of us were querying the claims that there were huge economic advantages to Britain and scarce export orders to be won if Britain remained within the EEC. Some of us had the


temerity to suggest that the EEC was running out of economic steam. I hope that that is not the case and that things will pick up. However, we must bear in mind that there are now about 5 million unemployed persons within the EEC. In Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom there are 1 million unemployed. In Denmark 9 per cent. of the work force is unemployed. The exception is Luxembourg, which with about 400,000 people is approximately the same size as Wigan, one of my metropolitan districts. There is about 0·15 per cent. unemployment in Luxembourg, but I hardly think that we can regard Luxembourg as a nation in the true sense of the word.
We have had a major debate and a major argument about energy. I am bound to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that some of us are very disappointed with the actions of our leadership. Some of us fought very hard in the European Parliament, meeting a considerable degree of hostility from the Europeans, in defending the British position. Those who are prepared to gird their loins to defend the British position in anticipation of the great arguments which will come about on transport—for example, tachographs and the 8-hour day—and other policies involving the Environment Committee, such as environmental and pollution problems in the rivers, wonder whether the Government will once again remove themselves from the firing line when the first shots are fired. We wonder whether the statements made by our leaders bear credibility. It seems that when the first shots of anger are fired it is us who are left in the firing line.
When we meet our Socialist colleagues in Europe next week I am certain that they will have one or two words to say about the British position which we stoutly defended only a couple of months ago.
One or two of the statements that have been made in attacking the Government's position, and particularly by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), should be set against the nationalistic position taken by the Germans, the French and the Italians. It would do the hon. Gentleman a considerable amount

of good to attend the European Parliament and to observe those countries adopt their national positions.
One of the first things I noticed when we attended our first European Parliament, when the wine debate was held, was the amazing sight of the Italian Communist and Italian Christian Democrats standing shoulder to shoulder in defending the Italian position. On many matters there will be a British position. I have no doubt that in the months that lie ahead the British Labour delegation and the British Conservative delegation will move closer together on some issues in defending the British position.
In the early days it struck me forcibly that those of us who bore the tag "anti-Marketeer" around our necks were labelled chauvinists when defending the British position as we saw it, whereas other countries would put their hands on their hearts and say "We are wonderful Europeans". They say that they believe in the European ideal when taking a blatantly nationalistic view. That is true particularly of the French and the Italians.
I am opposed to direct elections by 1978. I have no wish to go into the legalistic details which were dealt with so admirably by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I wish to deal with the practicalities. We are told that we must have direct elections, but why must we have them? Who is to suggest that democracy is maintained because once every four years, as is suggested, or five years people put a cross on a piece of paper? I do not think for one moment that that is democracy.
I remind those who argue for direct elections that, strange as it may seem, every other delegation in the European Parliament, with the exception of the British, has been elected, whereas in our delegation we have representatives of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party and Members from another place who have been elected by no one and are responsible to no one.
Those of us who are in this House are democrats. We have been directly elected by our people. I suggest that we are still capable of following the democratic ideal without direct elections. In


one respect I am a microcosm of what an official European MP might be because of the hideous local government reorganisation disaster which hit Great Britain, and particularly my constituency. I have to deal with no fewer than three county councils, four district councils and a new town. I represent about 100,000 people.
I think I am right in saying that British Members of Parliament who were members of the European Parliament would, in effect, have to represent approximately 500,000 people. I have an enormous job dealing with the local authorities in my area. Anyone who was elected from my part of the world would have Lancashire added to his list and probably one or two extra district councils.
I have talked to many people about direct elections. The Socialist rapporteur, Mr. Patijn, is very keen on the subject and has produced an excellent report, saying "Let us have direct elections; that will make us more democratic and will mean more power." That is to beg the question. The European Commission is playing politics. It has watched the Council of Ministers take away so many of its powers over the past few years that it is attempting to use the European Parliament to get back power from the Council of Ministers. No one will ever give it any powers. The powers will have to be evolved.
We have discussed today areas in which Parliament itself will obtain powers, and I suggest that that is the correct way to approach elections. Let the institution grow first and let the people know what the institution is about. Having spent three years as a full-time agent, I know the practicalities of politics and elections in this country, but not in other countries. I know that, between General Elections, at local government elections the British people have an opportunity to vote against the Government. Those who bother to turn out take that opportunity to show their displeasure of the Government. Hundreds of councillors of all parties have been hounded out of office because of the unpopularity of the Whitehall Government. We all know about that, and we know how unfair it is. Far from strengthening the European ideal, far from giving credence and power to the European Parliament if, as a result of

direct elections, the members of the European Parliament are in opposition to their national Governments, the Council of Ministers will take even less notice of them than it does now—and that is little enough.

Mr. John Corrie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people in our constituencies who voted us into the House did so because they wanted us to do a job in Westminster? He must know, as I do, that it is physically impossible to do a job in the House and a job in Europe at the same time, and the day will come when the two jobs must be separated.

Mr. Evans: I reject that argument. I have one of the biggest constituencies, and I have to work hard. Although I have 100,000 electors, I have not received one criticism from my electors because I have attended institutions in Europe. I know of no other member of the European Parliament who has been criticised for that reason by his constituents.
I am not a federalist. I am an advocate for my own country. I hope that as time goes by the European countries will get closer together, but the European Parliament and European institutions must grow slowly and not be forced. If they are forced, they will collapse.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: It is a pity in a European debate to hark on legalities and concentrate on minutiae. Until the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke I thought that the debate also lacked vision. In concentrating on small issues we tend to forget that the vision is to bring together the people of Europe so that they work togther for a constructive future in a world that is becoming increasingly unkind in the economic and social sense, if not in other senses. I am not sure that we have the right formula in Parliament for dealing with issues that concern our destiny in Europe. In my view, the procedures here and in Europe should be examined.
I have heard the views of honourable colleagues in the European Parliament—of which I am a member—intermixed with the views of the Westminster Parliament. One of the virtues of the dual mandate is that the national Parliament


can keep in touch with the European Parliament. I take the view that it is an impossible and intolerable burden for anyone to be a member of both Parliaments for an indefinite period.
My experience is different from that expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). My electors expect me to represent them in Westminster, although the source of power is in Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg. I support direct elections as outlined in Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome. I accept that we must debate how we are to achieve that goal, and the timing.
If a member of the European Parliament represents his constituents well in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg—I wish there was only one place and not three—he should be entitled to be re-elected at the next General Election, and not feel that he has let down his constituents in the Westminster Parliament. I support direct elections, and I accept that ultimately we should move not towards confederalism but towards a federal structure because the necessity for power in the European Parliament in Brussels is urgent.
Hon. Members complain of the plethora of regulations and papers issued by the Commission. Until Ministers control the output and until parliamentarians control Ministers—which they can do only by direct election—the Eurocrats will lead parliamentarians by the nose. But, in saying this, I in no way wish to criticise the competence and dedication of the European civil servants working in the Commission.
Behind the White Paper is the concept of the budget and the desire of Ministers to reduce expenditure. The only danger is that certain items of expenditure, if drastically reduced, destroy continuity, particularly in science, research, and technology. If the Parliament tries to restore funds to maintain that continuity in order, for instance, to ensure that the regional development fund has the power it needs, the Minister must listen. That is the tenor of the debate we have just held in the European Parliament.
I have been involved in the work of various European committees, including those concerned with energy, research and

technology. Irrespective of Britain having to work within the Community, there are in addition the Paris energy conference and the Rome talks. Energy policies are the concern of all of us in Europe. The process obviously starts with oil policy and the need for the nations of Europe to work together. This is what we have been doing in committee in the European Parliament. European colleagues hoped that there would be a European hydrocarbon or energy policy. Here, we have been discussing whether North Sea oil belongs to the Shetland Islands, to Scotland or to Britain. As has been stated in the White Paper on devolution, just as coal in Yorkshire and Nottingham, where I live, is British, I hope that oil now is also British. Having said that, there should be a co-operative effort in exploiting these resources and using European skills in doing so. A number of items have been discussed, including liquid petroleum gases and the uses to which they could be put, the avoiding of flaring, and perhaps the use of power packs on the platforms to generate electricity, when it is too costly to convert into liquid petroleum gases and move them back here. This would avoid wastage.
This all comes back to the discussion in Rome yesterday about the value of North Sea oil. In the North Sea the capital cost of extraction could be 10 or 15 times that of the cost of extraction of oil in the Middle East. We know that. The cost of production could be up to that figure as well. It is, however, difficult to estimate the exact costs.
The Government have set up the British National Oil Corporation, which I have condemned as a method of dealing with this new industry. However, that is the way we are to do it. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether we want or need to share the market for our oil. I hold the view that, because the cost of extraction is so high for us and we are in competition with the traditional OPEC countries, we need a guaranteed market. Our European friends want a guaranteed source of supply for some, if not all, of their oil. Do the Government think that we can go it alone? But we should be co-operating and co-ordinating with the Community countries, because we may fail on our own. We have been


insular and isolated at a time when we want friends to help us in other directions, particular economically.
I recognise that Lord Carrington and successive Secretaries of State for Energy of both parties have said that this is our oil and that we should control the rate of depletion, because if depletion is too fast the resource will go before it need have done. If it is too slow, capital assets will deteriorate or maintenance costs will be too high. These are issues on which we must co-operate.
Again, it is very costly for one nation to go it alone in energy research, whether it be into solar systems, the transfer of energy, or the use of geothermal resources. One example is the JET—Joint European Torus—project, which involves plasma fusion. Much work has been done in Culham on this. We have been the world leaders in this. In the last committee that I attended the question was where the work should be located. I do not think that British insularity, and the line taken by our Prime Minister, will help other Ministers or Members of Parliament to ensure that this new work can come to this country. Insularity in one respect may mean that others will isolate us in different ways, and, therefore, it is a pity that the independent line has been taken at this time by the Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) stressed the disaster of the debate on the aircraft industry yesterday, and the nationalisation of that industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) pointed out from the Front Bench that there is a need to look at the aircraft industry as a European industry rather than as an isolated industry in this country, although we have had the greatest capacity of any EEC country.
A paper produced by the Commission, now being discussed by the committees, concerns not only the aircraft industry but the operation of the airlines. If I may criticise that paper, it is that it has dealt with a type of aircraft on which there has been co-operation, and it has not dealt with the industrial aspect, the plant, the lay-out, and the capacity to produce.
There have been remarkable difficulties, and obviously we understand the case of the Lockheed Tri-Star aircraft using a Rolls-Royce engine. This is by no means the only independent line criticised, but if we look at the structure of the aerospace industry of Europe first, we realise that, working together, we can evolve a pattern that will ensure jobs in Britain and in Europe. If we work on our own and shut our eyes to the rest of Europe, we shall have no market for our skills, despite being one of the leaders in this field.
In airline operations we have debated Eurocontrol as an ideal for uniform aircraft and flight traffic in Europe, equivalent to the system in the United States of America, but accepting the difficulty that, until we have unified control for military as well as civil flights, Euro-control as a concept is futile and useless. This has been put to us by IATA in European terms. We should think of it as well in this country.
Touching briefly on transportation, we have had discussions in the Transport and Regional Affairs Committee with the Commission and with the Ministers on the issues facing us. Obviously, here we are concerned with the social recommendations, in respect of the tachometer, and the 450-kilometre driving distance limit, as well as the drivers' hours, which concern operators in this country. I hope we shall be able to find from the Ministers the extent to which we can get deferment of the introduction of the tachometer and the extent to which we can comply with the European pattern.
When we were having the debates on entering the Community there were questions of vehicle weight, axle weight, size and dimensions. We are nearing agreement, but the final compromise has not been reached. Until that compromise is reached, road haulage will not flow on a uniform pattern. That matter is on the agenda for the ministerial conference this month. It is urgent to reach a compromise. I shall be most disappointed if the Ministers have not moved towards that package.
My next point, on which I have no time to dwell in detail, concerns the operation of the Regional Fund. There has been pressure by Ministers to reduce the value of the Regional Fund. The


German Government have been behind this because they are funding most of it. We in this country want the continuity to be maintained, but as parliamentarians we must ensure that our claims are put forward effectively, and with the right timing, compared to the claims of other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and I and many others have seen the list. Our list has been on infrastructure grants. The other list has been in respect of factories and other schemes which will provide employment. I have asked a series of Parliamentary Questions about various areas of the country, including Ireland, and about the various claims which have been put forward, the extent to which they will bring employment and in what area of employment. In answer to a Written Question today, I have been told:
It is not possible for reasons of commercial confidentiality to give details of industrial applications under the Fund and it is not desirable to publish details of other applications which are still under consideration. When decisions are taken on applications announcements will be made.
I hope that we can have a list not only of European money going into a project but of national financial contributions and other outside funds. The Regional Fund is only part of the catalyst for a much bigger investment in areas where employment is required.
The ideal situation is for the Parliament of Europe to work together, if possible speaking with one voice, to ensure our survival and to forge our prosperity for the future. The leadership of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on the energy question has perhaps not been an example of working together but an example which shows Britain as the odd man out. The challenge is to comply as far as we can and to work together for a European future. With a prosperous European future, a prosperous and successful future for Britain will surely follow.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is a privilege to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) because he happens to serve on a committee in which I have certain interests, namely, rail transport. He said

that this committee had been discussing road haulage but had been unable to come to any agreement. However, he did not make any reference to rail transport, which in this country is publicly-owned. In land values alone, our railways are worth thousands of millions of pounds, quite apart from rolling stock and other assets. It is most regrettable that an hon. Member who sits on the European committee dealing with these matters should be unable to enlighten a Back-Bench Member who is vitally interested in rail and road haulage and in transport as a whole.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the committee deals with all aspects of transport policy—air, road, rail and inland waterway navigation. The shortage of time prevented my referring to them. The vital issue to be dealt with next month is that of road transport.

Mr. Spriggs: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but he will agree that he did not mention the railways, which are vitally important to Europe as a whole, bearing in mind that we are awaiting from the Government a policy statement on transport and that the United Kingdom has been devoid of a Government transport policy for many years.
I would never accept the position as Chairman of the British Railways Board, because Ministers of successive Governments have interfered with the management of our rail transport system. It has never been able to operate as a commercial undertaking should. Moreover, because it belongs to the nation, in the interests of the movement not only of people but of goods, I believe that there are other aspects to be taken into consideration—for example, the environment. We talk about the dangers of the lead content in petrol, but nothing has been done to remove it. All the experts have admitted that it is a danger to the nation's health.
I wish to refer to the White Paper. Hon. Members may care to refer, for guidance, to paragraphs 55 to 58. One cannot but realise that unless we have more of these debates and more reports of the type we have heard this afternoon from my right hon. and hon. Friends, many people will be left in partial ignorance about what is taking place in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
When my hon. Friends and other hon. Members return to European parliamentary business in the near future I hope that they will take back a message, because I believe that British transport lacks direction and Government support. No matter how clever the British Railways Board and its Chairman may be, it is well nigh impossible to run a viable railway transport system in any country. Yet Britain is one of the few countries which at present are cutting back their railway undertakings. The great danger is that it is much easier to close a system down than to find a body or a Government which will provide a railway undertaking which will operate in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Whilst listening to some very valuable contributions to the debate I looked up at the Strangers' Gallery and realised that there were five times as many people in that Gallery as on the Benches of both sides of the House. I admit that I was against entry into the Common Market, but I appreciate that this debate is of great value to the people of this country and to Members of Parliament. I regret that this debate has not attracted the interest of many more hon. Members than have participated.
It would be wrong to continue making any contribution to a debate such as this without congratulating those who have had the experience, which most of us have not had, of giving us what I would term a report. It has not been a very exciting report, or the type of report which we were led to expect prior to entry to the Common Market. However, I shall not reopen old sores.
The hon. Member for Hallam said that he served on the Regional Policy and Transport Committee of the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman—for what reason I do not know, because he did not explain; it may have been because of the time allowed for speeches—failed to deal with pollution. This country is bedevilled with pollution of the environment.
During proceedings on the Local Government Bill, which created the redistribution of local government boundaries, particularly in England, we were told that larger authorities would be able to deal with domestic and industrial waste by industrial means. The cost of

dealing with poisonous or toxic substances as waste was accepted as being beyond the ability of the smaller local authorities.
Local government has been settling in since it was reorganised in 1972. One of the great problems facing us—I do not know about our European partners—is the use of open tips. My constituents are very worried. People in St. Helens have spent many thousands of pound buying homes in areas where it is now proposed to develop tipping, including toxic materials, on a very wide basis.
When my right hon. and hon. Friends next serve on committees of the European Parliament, I should like them to take this message: the hon. Member for St. Helens, on behalf not only of St. Helens but of other places in this country, would like the assistance of the experts in Europe to help to develop an industrial system for the destruction of toxic and unwanted materials and for the recycling of glass and ferrous and non-ferrous metals back to industry.
A few years ago I endeavoured to help a chemical firm in St. Helens to import sulphuric acid from Belgium. To my surprise and shock I found that the sulphuric acid was contained in unsafe tankers, which were put on ships to be brought across the Channel. In one instance the fire service had to play cold water on a tanker for the whole of its journey across the Channel on a vessel. In another instance a tanker reached the deck of a vessel but was taken off because it was in such a dangerous condition that the skipper refused to accept responsibility for it.
If the European parliamentary committees are really serious about the environment and transport, there is much to be done. British transport, especially the railway system, is in need of some guidance and, if necessary, financial help. I am sure that if there is any money to be given to help a transport system such as ours, it will be more than welcome. Dick Marsh, the Chairman of British Rail, has appealed time and again for the finance promised by various Governments who have failed to deliver the goods.
We have a system that cannot possibly operate on a long-term basis. It is impossible to operate our railway system on a


year-to-year basis. If we are to run a proper integrated and co-ordinated transport system, whoever the management may be, for goodness' sake let us give the management the power and the time, at least. Let them plan for 10 years ahead and then look at things again.

9.1 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I assure the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) that I myself represent a very proud railway town—Carn-forth. I keep, and certainly shall keep, a very close watch on the interests of railwaymen and on the railway system in this country in the Regional Policy and Transport Committee on which I have the honour to serve in the European Parliament.
I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) with great interest. He said that the Community paid too much attention to details and did not get down to the fundamental changes which were necessary if the Community is to flourish. He went on to point out that the Community spends 70 per cent. of its budget on the common agricultural policy, and that there is little sign of any change in that.
The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong in that regard. In its early years the Community set out to achieve an agricultural revolution which took us in Britain 150 years and caused great hardship in our countryside. The Community set out to achieve that in a fraction of the time and without the hardship that we here endured. The Community has very largely succeeded by now. It is ready now to move on from that stage to the next vital stage of raising the standard of living in the poorer regions of the Community.
I am not ashamed to admit that I accepted the invitation to join the European Parliament because I believed that this country could never achieve the prosperity needed to help our own regions, such as the North-West which I am very proud to represent, unless we were inside the Community. Just as the CAP formed the bond between the original Six, so I believe that in the next stage of the development of the Community the Regional Fund will become the cement to bind the new Community of Nine, and later more members, together.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), referring to applications for help from the Social Fund, said that putting forward projects was a very long-drawn-out process and that before an application can even be put forward it must have the blessing of the Minister. She went on to say that there must be direct communications between the regions and the Commission and between local authorities and regional development associations in this country for them to present and argue their own case.
Hon. Members must appreciate that that is equally true—in fact, more so—of the Regional Development Fund. Governments can make mistakes. Our present Government frequently do, especially in their regional policy. The regions would feel very much happier and have much more confidence in the regional policy of the Community if they could put their projects direct to the Regional Committee, as the hon. Lady suggested in relation to applications to the Social Fund. The Regional Fund in its infancy and the way Governments deal with their share of the Fund will be a test of their good faith with the rest of the Community. Our own Commissioner, Mr. George Thomson, has said:
The regional fund should be a bonus to help disadvantaged regions, over and above what would be spent on regional aids by member governments.
Unfortunately, there is a grave suspicion that the United Kingdom Government will not do this. Both the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Planning and Local Government have put on the record in circulars that local authorities will not be allowed to embark on additional projects because of the availability of additional funds from the EEC Regional Fund. But the Fund was not intended to bail out ailing national Budgets. It was intended to be of direct assistance to our regions, particularly at this time of very high unemployment.
In my own constituency, unemployment this month has risen to the horrifying figure of 7.4 per cent., with the even more horrifying statistic that there are 55 people for every vacancy. Every hon. Member who represents a constituency in the regions should urge the Government to keep to the spirit of the Regional Fund and not allow others to misuse our share. If this is done, our


regions can at least begin to enjoy a standard of living which more fortunate areas have long taken for granted.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: This has been one of the strangest debates I have taken part in for a very long time. We are dealing with six months of Community activity at a time when the European Council has just met, various statements have been made by Prime Ministers and Presidents and Press conferences have been held at Heathrow Airport. We have been denied the benefit of hearing exactly what happened at the Rome summit meeting from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, yet we are holding a debate on these very issues. I am sorry that the Minister of State refused to give us any information about what happened at the conference. In the past six months the European Parliament has been debating the issues which have led up to what took place in Rome. A lot of the work we have been doing has been concerned with the issues raised in the summit. If we had not been discussing them, the summit would not have taken place on these problems and issues.
I agree with the hon. Members on both sides who have said that they hope this will not happen again. It was a mistake for neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister to make a statement today. Alternatively, the debate could have been postponed until tomorrow. Those who arrange the business of the House knew when the conference would be finished and when this debate was to be held. Rearranging the business would not have required much ingenuity. Enough has been made of this point in the debate, but I hope that a similar situation never happens again.
Of the 20 speakers in the debate, 12 have been members of the European Parliament. That shows the vast amount of interest being taken by other hon. Members who are always talking about wanting to know more of what is going on in Europe. It is strange that when the opportunity is offered to them, it is not taken up to the extent that one would have expected.
The main themes of this debate have been clear, to the extent that the debate

has lent itself to themes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) said, it has been a diffused debate. The principal issue has concerned direct elections. At one point I closed my eyes and thought that I was back in the House in the pre-referendum period. Some of the speeches had a most familiar ring, and I thought that we were about to fight all the old battles once again.
We are now, thank goodness, in the Community. Of course, that is not irreversible. This House could take a decision to change that situation, but to all intents and purposes we are in the Community to stay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ban-bury (Mr. Marten) and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) have been talking about the mandatory position of direct elections. As I understand it, it is mandatory under Article 138 for the Assembly to draw up proposals for direct elections on the basis of universal suffrage, and for the Council, acting unanimously, to lay down appropriate provisions and to recommend them to member States. The European Parliament has done that. The decision was taken there by an overwhelming majority in January, and it is now for the Council to fulfil its obligation.
I gather from statements in the Press and from what I have heard from the Prime Minister on the radio that the right hon. Gentleman states that there will be no hindrance from this country. The Danes seemed to be saying the same thing last week when I met the Danish Prime Minister, so it seems that Foreign Ministers will be given the go-ahead to fulfil their part and to make proposals to their various national Parliaments.
The national Parliaments will have the right to reject what has been recommended, but there is a basic principle here. It is that when we signed the treaty and when we had the referendum result we accepted Article 138(3). We said that we agreed in principle to accept that article. The provision is not mandatory; the House can throw out the proposal. But what is the point of signing a treaty which contains an article clearly stating that proposals will be put to the House of Commons for direct elections if we


have no intention of accepting that article and using our best endeavours to do so.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has written to me explaining that he is unable to be here for the winding-up speeches, and I am sorry that he is absent. He suggested that my party had been unclear about whether it supports direct elections. I must tell him that of course we do support them. The details, of course, must be worked out, but that will be taken care of in the proposals by the Council of Ministers. However, let me assure him that in principle we accept that there will be direct elections to the European Parliament.
I thought that this was no longer an issue of controversy across the Floor of the House. The controversy will arise when the Government, whichever party forms it, put a proposal before the House. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North will trot out all the arguments we have heard from him over the past five or 10 years, and that is when the controversy will begin.
A second main theme has emerged. It concerns foreign policy. There is no doubt that the White Paper shows that progress has been made, albeit not very great. If we put on one side the Helsinki conference, at which the Community spoke with one voice, I believe that we have made progress in foreign affairs. For instance, we have stopped the rather ludicrous procedure of having the Davignon Committee procedure whereby Foreign Ministers sat down, then got up, went out of the room, took off those particular hats, went in again and sat as the Council of Ministers.
Progress has been made on co-operation in foreign affairs. I welcome what has been said by hon. Members about the combined approach to deal with the difficult situation in Portugal and how the Community has definitely helped to support the democratic forces within Portugal and is helping to stabilise the situation there. We sincerely hope that this support will continue.
The Minister of State referred to Greece, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that Greece would

join the Community as soon as it was ready. Indeed, an association agreement was signed way back in the 1960s stating that Greece could be a member of the Community when it is ready. I hope that the next step will be taken soon, and that there will be a recommendation from the Commission that negotiations should commence with Greece for the purpose of working out the transitional and final terms for it to become a member. Greece's agriculture and industrial base need to be strengthened during this transitional period so that it does not find it too difficult to accede to the full provisions and can face the full blast of Community membership.
The House should not forget that there is another country which is an associated State under the same kind of agreement as Greece; namely, Turkey. There are problems connected with Turkey's membership—as there are with that of Greece—in relation to the Cyprus situation. This is not the moment to go into those problems in detail. Turkey has an association agreement with the Community on exactly the same lines as Greece. We must bear in mind Turkey's point of view and interests when the Foreign Ministers of the Community negotiate the terms of final membership with Greece. We must ensure that Turkey's interests are safeguarded and the door is left open for her to join.
The Minister of State mentioned the powers of the European Parliament and the budgetary aspects, which are referred to in the White Paper. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that when the Council of Ministers met to deal with budgetary questions it would be with what the European Parliament has, in point of fact, asked to be put back into the budget—that is, just over 360 million units of account—and that a proportion of what the European Parliament has been asking for the social programme will indeed be put back by the Council, in conformity with the original proposal of the Commission.
There are many more issues in relation to the budget that I should like to underline, but many Members have spoken of the powers of the Parliament and, if there is a directly elected Parliament, what it will do and what will happen there. One of the areas in which gradually—I underline that word—the


European Parliament is increasing its ability to control events is through its control of the budget. There is an enormously long way to go. A mere 15 per cent. is a small proportion of what we can control and we can put back even less after the Council has decided to cut the budget. It is about 70 million units of account this year compared with the total budget of many thousands of units of account. Gradually, however, as our own resources and our control over them increase within the Community, so will the European Parliament have greater control over Community expenditure for social, regional, agricultural and other purposes.
There is a continuing argument about whether we should give more power to the Parliament, but I hope that progress here will come gradually and naturally as the Parliament develops its various institutions and methods of financial control. One of the issues raised in the White Paper is the setting up of a mechanism for the control of expenditure. The Prime Minister has said several times recently that he would like to see a system equivalent to that which we have here, a Public Accounts Committee system, established as a European Committee of Parliament to scrutinise expenditure.
The establishment of a court of audit will be part of that procedure. If one is to have a PAC system, one must have the necessary tools for the purpose, and a court of audit is a sine qua non if we are to have a committee of that kind examining expenditure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, with his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, will do all he can to bring this idea forward as soon as possible even though it may entail a small increase in expenditure during the coming year, 1976.
I have no time to go deeply into the question whether the European Parliament and the Community itself should develop along federal or confederal lines. That is not the purpose of our debate today. But what is important—this arises from what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—is that we do not want an over-centralised unitary form of administration in the EEC. No one wants that, not even the most ardent federalist or those who, like myself, take a rather more pragmatic view and believe that change will come

naturally with the development of the European Parliament and the financial powers of the Community as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) outlined.
In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet spoke about harmonisation, and many hon. Members have taken that matter up. One of the many achievements for which we in the Conservative Group at the European Parliament can claim a certain credit is that after we first joined the Parliament back in 1973, through persistent harrying of the Commissioners and putting our case to them, we succeeded in getting the Commissioner in charge of that policy area to make a statement that harmonisation would never be done purely for harmonisation's sake and would happen only when it was essential to improve or to enable conditions of fair trading and fair competition to exist within the European Community.
If right hon. and hon. Members would look at the record of what has taken place during the six months covered by the White Paper, or even the year before that, they will see that there has been a great reduction in legislation and directives dealing purely with esoteric subjects for harmonisation.
However, there still remain certain problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) gave one example, the question of the lead content of petrol. This is an important issue. I firmly believe that what was proposed was wrong. There is not much danger in the level of lead content in petrol which we have in the United Kingdom, and I know of no scientific evidence to prove that there is. Nevertheless, this was a harmonisation proposal from the Commission which would have had a serious effect, as my hon. Friend pointed out, on the whole economy of our petrol industry and would quite unnecessarily have increased costs. I was astonished to find Labour Members voting for that harmonisation in the European Parliament. If the European Parliament had accepted it and it had gone through to the Council of Ministers it would have entailed a considerable increase in costs. Luckily, Parliament rejected it. In principle, the European Parliament and the Commission are not embarking


on a great deal of unnecessary legislation in that direction. The right area in which a great deal more should be done, and will be done, is that of pollution. It is right to say that some forms of pollution are common to all States and to all areas. In those instances it is right that there should be a general level of harmonisation legislation to deal with pollution, be it on the land, in the sea or in the air. However, in many cases what is good for the Mediterranean area is not necessarily required for the various estuarial waters around the United Kingdom. It is not sensible to try to find legislation to deal with the whole complex.
One of the jobs which we have been trying to do in the European Parliament is to take great care to ensure that unnecessary harmonisation legislation is resisted. We try to see that it is introduced only for specific areas where, for example, pollution control should take place, but there is the argument that where we are contiguous, and there are many such areas, there pollution legislation should be introduced on a European basis.
The hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke about the safety and health of workers and consumers. In that context it is right that there should be European legislation on a Community basis.
Finally, I deal with what we have been doing in the European Parliament and in Europe generally concerning overseas territories, including the third countries. One of the successes which took place just before the period covered by the White Paper was the signing of the Lomé Agreement. As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) said, the 46 Lomé Agreement countries have had their preliminary meeting in Luxembourg. I had the honour of being present at that meeting for a short period last week. It was an extremely interesting development, and it should be recognised that the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) played a great part in bringing about the agreement. It is only fair to give praise where praise is due.
The Lomé Agreement will undoubtedly do a great deal to improve relationships between the Community and the 46 countries. The gibe which has so often been heard over the past few years is that

the Community is an inward-looking body. By the Lomé Agreement the Community has proved that suggestion not to be true. There is nothing on which the Community seems to spend more time than attempting to find ways and means of improving its trading positions and relationships with third countries.
There is a tremendous movement in co-ordinating and developing trading relationships with the Mediterranean countries. New agreements are coming forward all the time. That also applies to South-East Asia. I am glad that reference has been made to the problems which exist in giving food aid to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Community is not in a position to give a vast amount of food aid to those countries. Indeed, I do not think that they want aid in the form of food. I think it would be better if some form of agreement along the lines of the Lomé Agreement could be negotiated for South-East Asia, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
In conclusion, I come back to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He was disappointed that the Community was not making great progress and that the Government were not taking initiatives. That is true. Those of us who work in the European Parliament know that there has been steady, slow grinding work which never seems to stop and the work load never gets lighter. There has not been the galvanic advance that we expected, even in these grim economic days, from Her Majesty's Government, the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend once the referendum was over and we were firmly within the Community.
After this six months of regaining their breath and their powers of imagination, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government during 1976 will help to revitalise the EEC. What one hears from one's colleagues of other countries in the European Parliament and the Community institutions is true. We are the ones who have been dragging our feet and who have put up obstacles, problems and difficulties which it has taken endless man-hours to solve, as in Rome this week.
I hope that this kind of performance will cease and that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman will do everything they can to further Community


ideals—for which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so bravely during the referendum campaign—and to see that the United Kingdom takes a lead in building a unity of the European countries so that the Community is a force for good in the world in the years to come.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Mr. Michael Stewart.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for intervening at this stage, because we are all waiting with great interest to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) has to say. When the Minister of State said that there would not be a second Government speaker and expressed the hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham would catch your eye, I assumed that he would reply to the debate but would give up perhaps half his time to his right hon. Friend. As we are considering a Government White Paper, is it not right that, after listening to the views of the House, the Government should respond to what has been said in the time-honoured tradition of accountability to the House? I therefore make what I hope is an appropriate protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make his protest, but it is not a point of order.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). I am sure that he will not misunderstand me when I say that we all regret that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) is not with us, and hope that before long he will resume his work, both here and in the various places where European parliamentary work is done.
If we look at the debate as an attempt to strike a balance sheet on the past six months, I am not sure that we shall all take quite so gloomy a view as did the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). It is true, as he said, that the Community is not making much progress on industrial policy. In some respects it does not seem to be aware of the importance of the issues involved. It is symptomatic that among the various committees of the European Parliament no

committee is dedicated specifically to industry. There is a gap there.
It is also true that only a little progress has been made on the stocktaking of the common agricultural policy, although the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) fairly said that that policy was intended to carry through an agricultural revolution and, in the end, to reduce the number of people employed in agriculture and increase the efficiency of the agricultural processes. There is no doubt at all that it has made progress. It has cost a good deal on the way, and I think that Europe has now reached a time when the costliness of the agriculture programme has to be very severely examined.
Against these criticisms it is also fair to say—nobody has disputed this—that in the last six months the Community has shown an increasing capacity to use its political influence. There is not much doubt that the great resources of the Community, standing ready to help a democratic Government in Portugal, had a significant influence on events there. I think it is possible—although here one ventures into prophecy—that a similar development will occur, if things go well, with Spain. I believe that in both countries of the Iberian peninsula a number of people have for years deeply regretted the estrangement of these two countries from the family of European nations. If it can be made clear that the price of their entry into that family is the firm establishment of democratic institutions, it will be an advantage to Europe as a whole.
There is a credit balance also in the Community's increasingly generous and imaginative approach towards the problems of the developing world. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whose speech I was not able to hear, described her experience of this. We in Britain should be particularly proud of this approach, because so many of the countries concerned are linked with us in the Commonwealth. Like others, I felt anxiety that entry into the Community might estrange us from the Commonwealth. In view of the many points at which the Commonwealth countries and the Community are linked, we should have found ourselves further removed from contact with the Commonwealth if we had remained outside the Community. [Interruption.] I did not


expect that remark to carry universal agreement. I suggest, however, that those of my hon. Friends who do not agree might at least think the matter over. I have listened patiently to many things with which I did not agree in this debate, and I have been thinking them over.
I do not propose to go on summing up. One of the advantages of replying to a debate when not on the Government Front Bench is that one is not under an obligation to summarise all the speeches. The way to make a successful reply from the Government Front Bench is to say, "The hon. Member for so-and-so made a most valuable point and my hon. Friend the Member for so-and-so made a very interesting point." It is not necessary to answer the points; one simply needs to show that one has noticed them. This goes down extremely well. But it is not necessary for me to waste the time of the House in that exercise. The House will expect me, in view of the position that I have the honour to hold, to comment mainly on the work of the European Parliament and the way in which it relates to the events of the last six months. In commenting on the European Parliament I should first raise the question of direct elections.

Mr. Reid: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that point, will he comment on the points raised by the hon. Members for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and myself, about Scottish and Welsh representations in terms of the institutions of the Community, and say whether separation has any meaning within the European Economic Community?

Mr. Stewart: I was going to talk about the European Parliament. If I followed the hon. Gentleman's speech correctly, he was particularly concerned with the way in which Scotland could make her voice heard, as Scotland, in the European Parliament and the other organs of the Community. He will forgive me if I do not give him a full reply on that question, for what it involves is the question whether Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. I must record my own opinion that it would be to the advantage of both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if Scotland were to remain part of the United Kingdom. I

think that certain consequences follow from that in relation to the EEC.
If one talks of the European Parliament one must say something on the question of direct election. There has been argument as to how far we can be regarded as committed on this. It is quite clear, from Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, that no nation is bound to accept any plan that comes along for direct elections, or to have a plan imposed upon it by majority vote. But I think it is also clear that any Government which entered the Community, having signed the Treaty of Accession and read Article 138, should not at the same time have in its mind a private resolve to oppose any scheme for direct election. A Government behaving like that would not be behaving in a straightforward manner. In common sense and honesty, quite plainly, Governments are required, in good faith, to try to make the idea of direct elections work.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the problem is not quite that, but that there is also a commitment to find a common method of election, which is a very different problem for Great Britain?

Mr. Stewart: I quite agree, and on that point we are obviously not obliged to take any scheme that comes along; but we are under an obligation to try, in good faith, to make the idea work. If I may say so, my hon. Friend and I are particularly committed, because the Government of which we were both members in 1969 were party to the Anglo-Italian declaration affirming Britain's faith in direct elections.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I record the fact that I voted against my own Government's obligation. Therefore, my commitment is perhaps not as strong as that of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Stewart: I think we might remember what happened in 1969, when the last Labour Government were in power. The reason why, in practice, I believe that we should go ahead with direct elections is that it is difficult for any Member, however conscientious, to fulfil the dual mandate now. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) said. It is not impossible, but it is very difficult. I think that the Parliament will grow, in terms


of the scope of its work, and that will make it increasingly difficult to fulfil the dual mandate properly, and particularly to fulfil it for any length of time. Our delegations to the European Parliament are constantly having to be changed because people feel that they cannot be separated from Westminster for too long. To that extent, our delegates will never play a really leading part in the European Parliament. These are practical considerations in favour of our pursuing the object of direct elections.
As to the nature of the European Parliament, any hon. Member going to it from this Parliament and measuring it against this Parliament will no doubt experience a sense of disappointment. This Parliament, after all, is sovereign, pragmatic, and stationary at Westminster. The European Parliament is subordinate, pioneering and nomadic, and one becomes acutely aware of this as the months go on. I say that it is subordinate: one could fairly say that Europe has at the moment, in effect, a two-chamber legislature—the Council of Ministers and the Assembly—in which the Council of Ministers is in every conceivable meaning of the word the Upper House. Indeed, it recalls to some extent what I believe was the position of the Commons in the very early history of the English Parliament, when a Bill was a kind of humble petition from the Commons to the great Lords of Parliament and the Crown, the Commons hoping to get something through. However, we notice over the years what has happened to the Commons House of Parliament.
Despite its subordinate nature, the Assembly possesses what might be described as certain nuclear weapons. However, they are of such a horrific nature that it is extremely difficult to use them. It can, if it goes through the proper procedures, sack the entire Commission. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Governments reappointing the same Commission. However, I suppose that the Parliament could do it again. A little more realistically, it can reject the entire budget. Although these powers sound too sweeping and too clumsy to be used, they should not be entirely ignored.
The tone of the recent budget debate in the European Parliament was striking. In many parts of the House there was the angry reiteration, "If we get this sort of

thing from the Council again, we shall reject the budget." It was not done this time. However, I do not regard it as in any degree impossible. If again, we were presented with a budget in which expenditure on the agricultural policy was regarded as sacrosanct, where all the cuts had to fall on other forms of expenditure, and where they had been slapped on in an extremely disproportionate and haphazard fashion. I do not rule out the possibility of the Parliament rejecting the budget. That would oblige both the Commission and the Council to think again.
There are the avenues towards greater powers for the Parliament suggested in the Vedel Report, which was made some lime ago. It was suggested that it should be possible increasingly to give to the Parliament powers of co-decision on certain matters which are at present determined solely by the Council, and to give the Parliament increasing power over the allocation of expenditure on what are known as the "non-obligatory functions"
I think that it is towards the development of its power in that direction that the Parliament should concentrate its mind. One of its weaknesses at the moment is that it can so easily be left off to discuss this, that and the other immediate topics of the day, instead of asking itself what is the relation between the time that it will spend on that topic and the amount of power that will come out of it.
That is another reason why I am inclined to believe in direct elections. There will be a power struggle. I doubt whether people who can give it only part of their time can engage in what may be a long tactical struggle with the Council and the Commission to increase the Assembly's powers.
That brings me to my next point about the nature of the Parliament. I have described what I mean by calling it a subordinate body. It is also a developing body. By contrast with this House, which, over a long period, has developed highly articulated procedural methods which, on the whole, we adapt very skilfully to meet new needs as they arise, the European Parliament is still very much feeling its way. After all, in its full life it is only 17 years old, and the events of the past two years have been very much a new chapter in its existence.
I remember how one of my hon. Friends once wished to raise a point in a debate, and there was considerable doubt whether he would be in order in doing so. It took the occupant of the Chair rather longer to decide whether he was in order than it would have taken my hon. Friend to make his point in the first place. That is because there is not the same authority in the Chair, or even, sometimes, the same clarity about the rules of procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made a most interesting and significant speech. It occurred to me that many of the points he was making could, with advantage, be said in the European Parliament and their implications fully discussed. The trouble is that the amount of time available to the Parliament for that type of reflection on its problems is limited because, as my hon. Friend says, we have to spend so much time on the minutae of business. It clearly means that the Parliament must get to work on reforming its procedures. Indeed, Labour Party delegates are glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is the Chairman of the recently appointed Committee on Procedures.
I have described the Parliament as a subordinate and developing body, but it is also a partisan body. Indeed, I regard that as a very good and necessary thing. It is organised on party lines.
Several hon. Members have deplored the thin attendance tonight. We all know the reason for that. It is because there is not a vote either on this business or on any of the subsequent business. I am not suggesting that there should be a vote. I think that we should approach European politics in the spirit not that it would be almost indecent to have partisan votes about them, but that they are as much the subject of party controversy as anything else. For example, in the European Parliament my hon. Friends and I, together with our colleagues in the Socialist Group, secured the defeat of a particular report emanating from the President's right in that Chamber, or that quarter of the House. The report concerned the attitude of the Community towards competition. The point we were making was that the passages in the

Treaty of Rome and elsewhere about freedom of competition are not to be interpreted as a charter for unlimited free enterprise. They are a prohibition in terms of purely nationalistic restrictions on trade. They do not inhibit public ownership or social actions by Governments. That type of consideration will be increasingly important.
The Community deals—I hope that in time it will deal more fully—with such matters as health and safety at work, the rights of workers to participate in industry and the attitudes which the public authorities should take towards multi national companies. These are strong controversial matters—controversial between parties and controversial between different class interests. In my view is is good that the European Parliament is organised on partisan lines, because it will help to give vitality to direct elections to the European Parliament.
I have already described the Parliament as subordinate, nomadic, developing and partisan. The final adjective that I would apply to it is "prophetic" or "pioneering". For example, the action taken first by the Commission and later the Ministers over the negotiations that were taking place with Spain was preceded by a debate in the Parliament. It is extremely likely that that debate influenced the action of the Commission and the Ministers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us were very disturbed by reports, emanating from Brussels between the time of the debate and the actual engagement with the Spanish authorities, which suggested that the Commission's diplomatic services, or whatever they are, were disheartened by the attitude taken by the European Parliament?

Mr. Stewart: I do not mind whether they were disheartened or not. I am glad that we passed what I think was the right resolution in the European Parliament and that the Commission subsequently took what I regard as the right action.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us believe that, in practice, the wording of the resolution condemned those men to death?

Mr. Stewart: That is a view which many of us do not share. I was referring to the pronouncement by the Parliament on the continuing negotiations with Spain. The Parliament was performing a pioneering function, and I think that it can continue to do that.
During the debate hon. Members have mentioned a number of problems which the Community ought to tackle, but so far it has scratched only the surface.

Mr. Dykes: I apologise for interrupting and asking the right hon. Gentleman to go back a little. I thought that he was continuing with the same point. He was clearly proud of the action that was taken on the competition policy within the larger group of which he is a member. Will he explain why Socialists in the Committee stage, which was a thorough preliminary discussion of the same policy, did not oppose it then?

Mr. Stewart: By the time it came to the later stage the Socialist group was somewhat enlarged, and perhaps inspired. Anyhow, I am sure that we took the right line. We ought not to deplore partisan conflict.
I am glad, too, that we stuck out over Portugal and insisted that the Community should help as soon as possible and not wait, as some suggested, until next February when, possibly, the next elections would have been held. Again, we were able to press home a partisan point usefully. I describe that as a pioneering function.
There are several problems which hon. Members have mentioned of which the Community has so far scratched only the surface. Frequently a debate in the Parliament will bring out the critical issues and will possibly serve the kind of purpose that a debate on a Green Paper serves here, assuming that the Government are genuinely paying attention to it.

That is a function which the Parliament can increasingly perform.
I believe that all the limitations, frustrations and in spite of laborious business of the European Parliament, participation by this country is worth while. In that I think that I carry with me those of my hon. Friends who have participated in its work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I record that it is extraordinarily unusual for a debate of this importance to take place with no member of the Foreign Office staff being present in the Official Box throughout?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. I cannot even see the place.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Developments in the European Communities, April-October 1975 (Command Paper No. 6349)

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Northern Ireland (Loans) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (LOANS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (RATES)

10.1. p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This Order amends the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which consolidated and amended the then existing law on rating and valuation in Northern Ireland to achieve broad parity with England and Wales. However, it was not practicable in that Order to deal with certain kinds of hereditaments which are used for public utility purposes, or with the ratability of plant and machinery.
In addition the 1972 Order provided a temporary limitation of rates for playing fields, which ceases after 31st March next year.
The major purpose of this Order is to deal with these matters. Consultations have taken place with interested parties, including local government representatives, professional bodies, the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, the Gas Employers' Council and harbour authorities.
Article 11 and Schedule 2 deal with the ratability of certain items of plant and machinery. In Northern Ireland it has always been considered that plant in the nature of a fixture is ratable but recent legal decisions have thrown doubt on the view that the law regarding ratable plant had a wider interpretation than corresponding law in Great Britain.
In order to resolve such doubts and to achieve parity of assessment, Schedule 2 contains the precise classifications of plant and machinery as those in rating law in Great Britain. The new basis of assessment will not affect the continuance of the derating of industrial hereditaments.
Article 10 and Schedules 1 and 2 provide the new basis for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and for gas undertakings. For each of the undertakings any houses, showrooms and administrative offices will be assessed as separate hereditaments in the normal

way, that is, on an estimated rental basis. Each undertaking is deemed to occupy a notional hereditament for which an aggregate ratable value will be fixed by a formula based on throughput. It is proposed that discussions will take place with representatives of these undertakings to fix the basic aggregate ratable values and the formula for up-dating annually.
Article 11 and Schedule 2 provide the formula for calculating the ratable value of docks in Northern Ireland. Over the years there has grown up a what one can only describe as a hotchpotch of methods of assessing the major docks and harbours in Northern Ireland. The Belfast Harbour assessment is made on a tonnage basis, Larne Harbour on the "profits" or "accountancy" basis, Londonderry and Coleraine are exempt from rates, and Warrenpoint is assessed on a capital value basis. The proposed formula follows directly the present method used in England and Wales and will provide uniformity between docks in Northern Ireland.
The new basis of assessment will not affect the continuance of the derating of docks as freight transport hereditaments. This involves a reduction of 75 per cent. in the rate bill for qualifying hereditaments to be applied to keeping down freight charges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does this mean that the docks in Coleraine and Londonderry will now be paying a rate under this new assessment?

Mr. Concannon: This means that all the docks in Northern Ireland will be treated equally, and they will be treated on the same basis as the docks are treated in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mines and quarries are given the same concession by Schedule 2 as that available on the mainland. In assessing the net annual value of this type of hereditament in Northern Ireland, only one-half of the royalties paid will be taken into account.
Article 6 and Schedule 2 empower the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to determine by order subject to affirmative resolution the method by which the net annual value is to be assessed for undertakings such as canals, natural gas


terminals, railways and rediffusion. Any such Order will be made only after consultation with interested parties.
The last major change in the Order concerns playing fields. The temporary provision for relief from rates contained in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 terminates on 31st March next year. Article 4 of this Order simplifies and makes permanent this relief by providing for a 35 per cent. reduction in the amount of rates payable in respect of playing fields which are occupied by non-profit-making organisations using the land wholly or mainly for open-air games or athletic sports. In addition, this article empowers the Northern Ireland Department of Finance to make an order extending the relief to other types of recreational use.
I will now turn to some of the minor changes in the Order. Article 7 removes any doubt which exists concerning the right to relief from rates for property used for charitable recreational purposes; that is, those involving social welfare and those used for public services. Article 9 extends the derating of fish farms to shell fish beds, and makes the ratable value of oyster beds two-fifths of the net annual value.
Article 12 provides a safeguard for an agent who is chargeable with rates as "owner" of a hereditament who is liable to the extent of the money he holds or has held for his principal. Any sums he has been compelled to pay in respect of public health expenses are to be ignored.
Article 13 provides a complementary rule where an agent charged with public health expenses has paid out money in respect of rates.
I commend the Order to the House.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I always understood this was a technical matter but until I heard the Minister speak, I did not understand just how technical. Northern Ireland should have some form of local representation if this is the way its rating system is to be commended to the legislature. I want to ask a number of rather more fundamental questions than the Minister has dealt with.
The order at least has the one commending grace that it does not increase expenditure in Northern Ireland, but it certainly raises issues of tremendous local importance. Local government in Northern Ireland was reformed three years ago and the 69 districts were amalgamated into 26. The whole basis of the reorganisation was that there would be a local Parliament in Northern Ireland. Housing, planning, health and education were removed from local authorities and taken into the central Executive, which no longer exists. The whole system of local government in Northern Ireland pivots on the pre-supposition that there will be a Stormont.
I accept that we cannot reform local government again, but there are a number of points the Minister should recognise. First and most important is the frustration felt in Northern Ireland at the moment. Most functions of local government have been taken into central hands and local control is now largely nonexistent. Rates are levied and imposed, but there is very little democratic control over the way in which the money is spent.
The rating system in Northern Ireland is based on two rates—the district rate and the regional rate. Is the Minister satisfied that the system of imposing a regional rate related to an English district is proving a satisfactory way of dealing with Northern Ireland? Or should there be some way in which Northern Ireland interests can be taken more seriously, with the rates related to Northern Ireland conditions and problems?
Are the Government satisfied that a 40 per cent. increase in the district rate which now faces many ratepayers is simply due to inflation, or is it due to increased expenditure in Northern Ireland? May we have an explanation about the differences which occur in Northern Ireland rates? The regional rate varies according to area, and that arose because when Stormont disappeared the old councils had different rates. Regional rate varies from one district to another. How great is that variation and how soon may we see the change?
Has any thought been given by the Government to the revaluation of property in Northern Ireland? I understand that the system is based on 1939 values, and I can assure the Government, having


experienced two revaluations in my constituency, that nothing causes greater trouble than the use of old values and attempts to change them.

Mr. Concannon: A revaluation is in progress at the moment. It is due to finish on 31st December and will apply from 1st April next year.

Mr. Miscampbell: I am glad to hear that. I expect that when the revaluation takes effect the Minister will be glad that he does not have to depend on Northern Ireland votes.
In England there is a considerable uptake of rate rebate. How far has this been the case in Northern Ireland? Are the present troubles there and the obvious differences between the various areas making much difference in the take-up of rate rebate?
Ministers have discussed with the authorities in Northern Ireland the rebate which should be given for sports facilities there. They have been pressed on a number of occasions by the sports councils in Northern Ireland and those interested in sporting facilities. Surely if there was one place in the United Kingdom where it was essential to have sports facilities and to enable people to get out and do things together, like playing football, it is in Northern Ireland at the present time. What possible justification can there be for the fact that in English constituencies—I have looked them up—50 per cent. is the average that has been given and is the figure that has been recognised and recommended in the White Paper? Why is the situation in Northern Ireland not comparable with what is happening over here? Would it not be sensible to give to the Northern Ireland authorities the rights that are now open to authorities over here to give a grant up to 200 per cent. if necessary or to recommend that 50 per cent. should be given rather than 35 per cent.?
I hope the Minister can help us. I have no doubt that he will be asked a number of other questions and, in spite of the arid description of the Bill which he gave, will deal with what is really happening in Northern Ireland.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There are two aspects, as always, to any measure on rating. One is valuation and

the other is rating itself—the assessment and imposition of a rate. In considering this Order I want to deal with those two aspects separately.
The principle which underlay the reform embodied in the 1972 Order was that of a deliberate harmonisation of the principles of valuation as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or, at any rate, England and Wales. Certainly we on these Benches would have no quarrel with that principle. We see no reason why plant and machinery in a firm in Northern Ireland should be assessed to rates or not assessed to rates on a different principle from a firm in any part of England. We see nothing peculiar about the difficulties of assessing public utilities to rates which would prevent a satisfactory, or fairly satisfactory, system, if it can be evolved, from being applied just as much in Northern Ireland as it is on this side of the Irish Sea.
When I refer to the assessment of public utilities to rates, I mean, of course, the problems of localising the value of a public utility which is itself not localised in its operations. It was quite a nostalgic experience for me to study this Order and the background to it, because it sent me back almost 20 years to the time when I remember chairing an interdepartmental committee on the exciting subject of the assessment of gas undertakings—perhaps one of the most complex subjects to which I have had to devote my mind in any Ministry I have ever occupied, but a subject which is essential if that which is the basis of the whole rating system—a sense of fairness to all concerned—is to be achieved. I remember being astonished to find how many different interests, aspects and points of view had to be fed into any solution, in order to arrive at a suitable method of assessing public utilities to rates.
This Order carries further the harmonisation which was instituted by the principal Order, if I may so call it—the 1972 Order. It does so, as the Undersecretary pointed out, mainly in the two areas of plant and machinery and of public utilities. As one studies the order, one cannot fail to be struck by the clumsiness of the procedure which we are using. After all, basically, if it is the general will of the House—and it is certainly, as I have already said, not a will from which hon. Members on this


Bench would dissent—that there should be a uniform system of valuation for rating in the United Kingdom, the natural way to go about it, the simplest way, the most economical of parliamentary time and most productive of sensible debate with perhaps an even larger attendance than we are enjoying this evening, would be to apply the legislation to the United Kingdom, as indeed a good deal of legislation on domestic matters which goes through does apply to Northern Ireland. We had for instance a fisheries scheme only a night or two ago which in terms applied to Northern Ireland as much as to Great Britain.
For the most part, however, for reasons which I quite understand are partly historical and perhaps at this stage not wholly avoidable, we seem at present determined to build upon unsatisfactory and different foundations on the two sides of the Irish Sea. The Order before us and the principal Order are saturated, if I may so put it, with defunct constitutions. For example, in Article 2 we find a reference to the Interpretation Act applying to the Order
as it applies to a Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly".
I do not know whether anyone today still remembers the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have become accustomed to refer to it by the perhaps more graphic description of "the Heath Robinson constitution". It was a constitution which those of us who knew anything about Northern Ireland knew would never work, which never did work, and which collapsed disastrously. Whatever difference of view there may be about the future government of Northern Ireland, one thing on which all, I think, will agree is that, though it is still on the statute book, although the coffin lid has only just been screwed down upon its scarcely cold corpse, there will be no resurrection of the 1973 constitution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yet here in a necessary Order, in a piece of legislation which looks forward and of which the very object is to provide a system uniform with other parts of the United Kingdom, we find ourselves using these cast-offs, as it were, of "old, unhappy" things—not "far-off" things but things from the past.
Again, in Articles 4 and 6 we find that such-and-such an order is to be subject

to affirmative resolution. Hon Members not expert in these matters who read that in the course of their detailed study of the Order must have been somewhat surprised to think that when orders have to be made upon such detailed affairs they will be subject to an affirmative resolution, moved, no doubt, by the Under-Secretary of State in this Chamber at some unearthly hour. They would be mistaken. There is no question of an affirmative resolution being required. These expressions relate to a constitution which is not in force and probably never will be in force again even in this respect. There will, therefore, not be an affirmative resolution required for these orders.
I hope I have it right when I say that in both cases, in Articles 4 and 6, there is the possibility of a Prayer in the House; but so complex is the matter that it is quite possible that I am wrong and that no parliamentary procedure whatever is available. Yet here we are solemnly directing that there shall be inserted into the 1972 Order provisions which we know are not in force and never will be in force.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Powell: I hear my hon. Friend say "hypocrisy", but I do not think it is really that. I think that the Government find this as distasteful and as ridiculous as we do, and are scarcely less embarrassed than the rest of us by the detritus left over from the constitutional disasters of the preceding administration, for which they share only the qualified blame of having given it occasional encouragement.
Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be good enough to inform us whether the possibility of a Prayer still exists.

Mr. Concannon: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I see the Under-Secretary nods his head. I hope it is rather the nod of Olympian Jove than the nod of Homer. It seems, then, that even amongst the wreckage of the 1973 Act it will still be possible, should we be dissatisfied in respect of Article 4, for example, which deals with playing fields, to have a further debate in the House; and, indeed, there ought to be some possibility of debate.
Another matter, which has some seriousness attached to it, illustrates the clumsy method by which at present we are partly condemned to build on separate foundations in Northern Ireland—a procedure which produces unsatisfactory results. If hon. Members can bring themselves to look at page 17 and the following pages of the Order, they will see set out the principles dealing with ' notional hereditaments', an enjoyable concept much savoured by all who interest themselves in local government finance. Where we are dealing with notional hereditaments occupied by electricity or gas undertakings, the House, by confirming the Order, is confirming the express principles on which they will be charged to rates. When, however, we come to mines, quarries, docks—to some extent—and canals, we find that the principles are left open to be dealt with by departmental Order. Part XIII in page 19 provides:
The Department may by order (a) provide that paragraph 2
which sets out the principles of the Order
is to cease to have effect",
so that in (b) some quite different method can be applied by Order. One finds something very similar applying to docks and canals in Parts XIV and XV.
I make no criticism of the object behind those permissive provisions. The development of the methods applied in Great Britain in these respects is still fluid, and it is desired that we should not, by enacting something rigid in the Order, fall out of phase once again with the methods of valuation which prevail in Great Britain. Yet because we insist on proceeding separately in Northern Ireland we are obliged to write into the Order these discretionary provisions which are objectionable in their width and scope. It does not arise from any desire on the part of the Under-Secretary of State or his colleagues to take excessive powers; it is that he wants Northern Ireland to keep in step with Great Britain in these matters—and so do we—but instead of proceeding in the normal way and producing enactments in due course for the whole United Kingdom, he is doing it at present in this double fashion, which produces a result unsatisfactory not merely in form but in substance.
I turn now from valuation to rating itself. As the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) found, it is this aspect which leads to the more serious and more politically-charged questions. When we come to the imposition of a rate, to the manner in which a rate is assessed upon the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, we are brought face to face with the consequences of the virtual destruction of local government, which was not brought about by this House but was accomplished in Northern Ireland before the demise of the old Northern Ireland Parliament and Stormont administration. It was that Parliament and that administration which virtually destroyed Northern Ireland local government and left the Province as it is today—with no representative local government above a district level restricted to a humble and limited range of administration.
The consequences were clearly brought out in a letter which the Under-Secretary of State was good enough to write to me a day or two ago. Struck by the fact that the ratepayer in Great Britain receives a detailed statement of the subjects on which the product of his rate is to be spent and the various shares which go to the various subjects, I innocently, and, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will retort, ignorantly—

Mr. Concannon: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: —the hon. gentleman is very charitable—put to him the suggestion that we might do the same in Northern Ireland. It will not be amiss if I read to the House the crucial sentence in the hon. Gentleman's reply. He mentioned that there are two rates, as there are two rates in the greater part of Great Britain, a district rate and—in Northern Ireland—a regional rate. He continued:
In making the regional rate the Department of Finance is required to take into consideration the average amount required to be raised by means of district rates and, having done so, endeavour to pitch the regional rate at a level "—
these are the crucial words—
which ensures that the total rate burden is related to that in comparable areas in Great Britain.
In other words, the regional rate is not a rate at all. It is an arbitrary imposition by way of a rate to bring about a certain


equilibrium between the yield of rates and the rate burden in Northern Ireland and that in Great Britain.
In present circumstances, one would not necesarily have any criticism of that principle, but it brings one face to face with the reality of the destruction of local democracy. The essence of local democracy is that expenditure administered by the elected representatives of the people has its repercussions on the rate which they are obliged to levy to sustain their activities and thus completes the chain or circle of administration, taxation and electoral responsibility.
To some extent that circle works in Northern Ireland in the limited sphere of the district; but in the major areas it does not exist. There are no elected bodies in charge of the administration of the major services. Consequently, a notional rate has to be imposed so that the ratepayers in Northern Ireland neither get away with it lightly in comparison with the rest of the Kingdom nor have to bear a figure which is plucked from the air. Still, for the major services in Northern Ireland there is no relationship between the level of the rate and the efficiency, volume or quality of the service. That is the total negation of democracy; and again I venture to prophesy that whatever is to be the future form of administration in Northern Ireland it will not be possible—it will be a great mistake if we attempt it, and I hope we shall not—to dispense with the restoration of genuine democratic local government. I use the term "local government" in its natural, normal sense as we use it in Great Britain. It is an indispensable element in the totality of democracy, an element only less indispensable than proper representation in this House itself. This Order brings out very dramatically how deprived in present circumstances, as a result of the wreckage of past, even pre-1972, decisions, are the people of Northern Ireland in this respect.
Reference has been made to the rating of playing fields and of indoor sporting provision by non-profit-making bodies and the contrast in this respect between the system which prevails in Great Britain and that of Northern Ireland. This, I believe, will be dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and others. My only point on it is that here again we

suffer from the absence of local government; for the 50 per cent. relief to which the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North referred, which prevails in Great Britain, is an average derived from the freedom of the local authorities there to make such dispositions as they think fit, for institutions within a much wider ambit than is provided for in Northern Ireland.
I suggest that, even in this relatively limited case, Northern Ireland suffers from the fact of there not being the administrative discretion which can only be entrusted to a democratically-elected body that is itself going to take the electoral consequences of what it does in terms of a rate—no body which will have to go to its ratepayers and say "This is the cost in terms of rates of the reliefs we think fit to accord to various forms of activity, and we ask you to approve it or otherwise."
Finally, I want to put this question. I have reminded the House, in the Undersecretary of State's own words, of the principle upon which at present the regional rate is determined by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland:
…to pitch the regional rate at a level which ensures that the total rate burden is related to that in comparable areas in Great Britain.
I believe I am right in saying that there is no unavoidable procedure which accompanies the making of the regional rate by the Department. If we refer to Article 7 of the principal Order, we do indeed discover that the order of the Ministry
shall be subject to affirmative resolution of the Commons.
But let us not run away with the idea that that means us. It is a "Commons" which has not existed for nearly four years now. If we look at Section 4 (5) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, we discover that there is no procedure at all: an order is just going to be made, and we cannot even pray against it.
I put, therefore, to the Minister and the Department something which need involve no demand at all on parliamentary time, but something which I think they will agree is fair and necessary and, in addition, good public relations. I ask that at the latest when the rate is made, and preferably before the rate is made, they should publish a document—it need


not be a formal document—which gives the statistics and the considerations upon the basis of which a particular figure has been selected as
ensuring that the total rate burden is related to that in comparable areas in Great Britain.
Let them indicate what they consider is meant by a comparable area. Let them give the reasons for the comparability. Let them give the figures which prevail in the comparable areas in Great Britain.
I do not say it will necessarily be appropriate for this to form the subject of debate under any of the procedures which we have; but I do not think the hon. Member would wish to deny that it is the kind of information which ought to be available to hon. Members of this House who authorise the imposition of a regional rate, or to the inhabitants of Northern Ireland who are to pay a rate imposed by unchallengeable ministerial order.
I hope the hon. Member will be able to indicate that favourable attention will be given to that request.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I should like, in the context of Article 4, to make some remarks on sport and recreation, following the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell).
In the course of the most recent of my regular visits to Service men in Northern Ireland, I was, as spokesman on sport for the Conservative Party, able to spend a day with the Northern Ireland Sports Council. As a preface to my few remarks on Article 4, may I say that I am most impressed with what the Sports Council is doing in the broadest sense in Northern Ireland. I think that the Chairman, Donald Shearer, and his committee, and the Director, George Glasgow, deserve a very special tribute for their achievements. Such successes as the sports complex at Craigavon and the very welcome development of the Mary Peters track enable all of us here to say "Well done" to Northern Ireland.
Subsequent to my visit I wrote to the Minister of State and was very glad to have his reply. I think we are on the same wavelength, although he will

understand that in my view more resources should be channelled to sport and recreation.
I appreciate that there is an overall ceiling, but within that concept of an overall ceiling there should be an element of flexibility in priority. I would certainly prefer to see rather more spent on sport and recreation and rather less on some of the measures in the Queen's Speech, such as nationalisation. I am talking in terms of £10 million for the whole of the United Kingdom for sport and recreation, as against the £2,000 million we spent in one day yesterday on the Bill before the House.
In the circumstances that I am putting forward, there should be rather more resources made available to Northern Ireland for sport and recreation. I want to look particularly at Article 4, relating to the relief of rates for sport and recreation.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Before my hon. Friend gets on to that, could I ask him whether, when he saw Mr. Shearer and Mr. Glasgow and others connected with the Sports Council, he had any discussion of my idea of an Ulster games meeting bringing together both Gaelic sports and British sports—an idea which the Minister of State put to the Sports Council? I am eagerly awaiting some word from the Sports Council or from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Monro: Only in superficial discussion of what seemed to be a very commendable idea, but perhaps the Minister of State might say more about that later on.
I accept right away that Lord Donaldson, when he saw the Sports Council in Northern Ireland, made a valuable concession in that he, subsequent to that meeting, accepted that indoor recreational facilities should be eligible for the 35 per cent. concession on rates which had previously been available only for playing fields and, presumably, for the pavilions attached to them. I welcome this move, but it is still far out of step with the remainder of the United Kingdom where, of course, discretionary derating is available and is commonplace, often up to 100 per cent. and usually at least 50 per cent. In paragraph 32 of the White Paper on Sport and


Recreation, the Minister for sport himself recommends 50 per cent. Why is not the Under-Secretary following his colleague's advice and increasing the discretionary derating to 50 per cent. now, rather than the 35 per cent. mandatory recommendation in the Order?
As the right hon. Member for Down, South rightly said, numerous authorities in the United Kingdom give 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. derating, and yesterday a number of hon. Members saw a film of the tremendous work being done at Gateshead under the direction of Brendan Foster, which shows what can be done if an authority has the power to put its full weight and drive behind developing sport and recreation.
We should bear in mind also that there is substantial derating in Northern Ireland for charities, the arts and church halls. Why are there no additional resources for recreation and sport?
To demonstrate the magnitude of the problem, I mention two cases. The first is the McCallum Hall, in which badminton and squash are the main facilities. Last year, its rate bill was £1,350, even though it lost £300 over the year. This year it would be £1,650 if it were not for the 35 per cent. reduction which has been announced. But it will still have to pay more than £1,000 in rates, and, with rising costs, the Under-Secretary will see what is facing that body of volunteer sportsmen.
The other example is that of the Lisburn Racquets Club. It was derated as an open-air club, but subsequently it has been rated because it has indoor facilities. Even with the 35 per cent., it will still have to pay more than £300 in rates.
I want also to make a plea on behalf of other sports clubs which charge a modest gate, so making themselves ineligible for derating. I have in mind the Northern Ireland League, for example. I hope that the Minister will look at their position, too.
I conclude my remarks with a mention of paragraphs 4 and 66 of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation, which highlight the necessity of providing these facilities, especially so in the very special context of the problems facing Northern Ireland today. All in all, we are talking

about facilities run by volunteers at no profit to themselves, and it is extremely difficult to raise funds through the traditional methods in Northern Ireland at present. Therefore, although of course it cannot be done in this Order, I believe that all hon. Members would support the Minister if he felt able to amend the next order to provide for a mandatory 50 per cent. derating or even make it discretionary at the earliest possible moment so that it could be increased to 100 per cent. where the case was deserving. The whole matter is too obvious to require a detailed explanation, but I believe that the Minister will be sympathetic about it. If he can assure us that he will go even further than the Lord Donaldson after his talks with the Sports Council, I am sure everyone will be very glad.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has put his finger on the most serious defect in both the rating system and the local government structure, or, perhaps more accurately, the lack of any local government structure in Northern Ireland.
It was put to me earlier today, by one who is long experienced in these matters, that we might be more honest in our approach if we were to scrap the whole idea of rating and settle for Schedule A income tax. I confirm my right hon. Friend's view that the blame for this situation in no way attaches to the present Government or, indeed, to their predecessors. I can well remember, and so can most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the occasion when the Minister of Development of the day in the former Stormont Government rather arrogantly said that he would not be held up or in any way delayed in bringing in his new arrangements just because there was a queue of self-appointed advisers outside his office door. I suggest, and I think my colleagues would agree, that it might have been better for Northern Ireland had he listened to some sound advice.
Article 6 of the Order deals with the basis of valuation. I cannot help wondering how accurate that is likely to be. My doubts are, to a great extent, based on experience of the operations of the self-same valuation staff engaged in related matters.
Reference has been made to church halls in Northern Ireland. In the expanding town of Antrim which lies within my constituency, the valuation officers have arrived at the most extraordinary piece of arithmetic. The Antrim Parish Church sought to purchase a site the assessment for which was many times the amount which had been assessed for similar churches purchasing similar sites. I know that the valuer's actions have so far defeated the sincere efforts made by the Under-Secretary to resolve this problem, but I trust that he will accept my cooperation in perhaps endeavouring to see that in the near future this matter is brought to a happy conclusion. This is not a question of discrimination, sectarianism or anything else. Indeed, I would hasten to clear my hon. Friend he Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) of any vested interest in this particular argument in Antrim town.
I am sure the Minister recognises that the Churches in Northern Ireland, despite all the unkind things said about them, without exception provide many recreational facilities and do a great deal of community work. In the new expanding towns it is important that the new communities take root quickly and easily. Therefore, it is all the more important that they should be facilitated in every possible way in establishing their structures and providing these services which supplement and complement what is being done by many other bodies.
One of those bodies is the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. We are gratified that the Government have seen fit to concede the point made in our submissions, as well as in many others, that certain sports grounds should be exempted.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the remaining two submissions. Submission 6:2 points out that in England local authorities have discretion to grant rate relief up to 100 per cent. My reading of the submission is that the White Paper gives local authorities discretion to apply relief of 50 per cent. or more if they feel that is justified. In Northern Ireland, local authorities have not, as the Order makes clear, been given such discretionary powers. Therefore, they are at a grave disadvantage when it comes to encouraging the provision of recreational facilities in their areas. This

restriction on their iniative is difficult to understand.
One wonders whether it is imposed because it is felt that Northern Ireland does not have the same need for recreational facilities as the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that is the view of our present Northern Ireland Ministers. They have given every encouragement. There has been some confusion or muddle, and we may possibly strengthen their hand by highlighting this point tonight.
Is it because local authorities in Northern Ireland are so low powered that they cannot be entrusted with responsibility of this nature? I hasten to add that I do not think that is the view of Northern Ireland Ministers.
The Sports Council in submission 6:3 brings out the point about admission charges. That would seem to be an unfair restriction. There does not seem to be anything objectionable in a sporting organisation making a modest charge to cover expenses, provided the powers that be are satisfied that it is not engaging in a money-making operation or exploiting those engaged in the sport or spectators. I should be grateful if the Minister would look sympathetically at that point.
Another matter which concerns many people in rural areas is the upkeep of village halls and halls belonging to various voluntary organisations. They are in desperate straits. They find their rate burden escalating every year. It might be said that is their affair and they should be able to pay their way. However, we must recognise that they are placed at a disadvantage because in many areas in Northern Ireland primary and secondary schools are in direct competition with village halls and halls belonging to organisations as regards lettings. Those schools are being subsidised by ratepayers. In many cases the people who are responsible for the upkeep of village halls, by paying rates, are literally cutting their own throats because they are providing the capital expenditure, or a large part of it, to build the schools and contributing to their upkeep. The rents charged by schools are extremely modest and do not take into account all expenses, other than what can be computed for light, heating, cleaning, and so forth. It would appear that


no consideration is given to the element which should be included if those schools were rated. We would like the Minister to examine that matter.
In a related category are halls belonging to the Royal British Legion. I am thinking of the Royal British Legion branch in the village which uses its hall for its annual meeting; for a meeting once a quarter; for organising its poppy sales; and doing charitable work for the Legion. I understand that the Area Secretary of the Legion in Northern Ireland has been in touch with the Department, but my impression is that it was not possible to put into the Order anything helpful to the Legion.
The Minister referred in his opening speech to charitable institutions. He seemed to draw the line rather tightly. He was rather narrow in his approach because he seemed to define them as those providing recreational facilities and engaging in community work. Many charitable institutions in Northern Ireland possess property but would not provide this kind of activity, although, nevertheless, they make their contributions to the well-being of the community.
Which of these articles provides for any kind of appeal against valuation? Will the procedure be clear-cut and simple? Can we avoid the very expensive kind of machinery we have now, which is largely ineffective? We seldom hear of anyone successful in a valuation appeal. One wonders why all this rigmarole is preserved, and why we are contributing to very expensive machinery which does not bring any benefit to the aggrieved ratepayers?
I look forward with fear to the coming months. In the first six months of 1976 50 per cent. of the mail bag of Northern Ireland Members will contain complaints about new rating assessments.
I trust that the Minister will see that we have some clearly defined procedure to handle complaints if there is not going to be a hard and fast appeal system.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: I thank the Minister for the concessions made in this rating Order, especially in Article 9 relating to the derating for the fishing industry. The people of Northern Ireland will also be very grateful for the many other concessions.
There are a few questions I should like to direct to the Minister. In Article 6 paragraph (a) we have, to my mind, the rating department looking for a blank cheque for changing rates whenever it cares to do so. How difficult will it be, after this legislation, to modify the Order?
Would "recreational charities" cover citizens advice bureaux and community centres? We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the Ministers in charge of community work in Northern Ireland have done a great deal towards this, and yet these community centres are being held down tremendously by the heavy rates being imposed upon them. Will the Order cover senior citizen's clubs under the heading "recreational charities"?
How many people are getting rate rebates? I have in my hand a list of some rebates for private property. It may be difficult for the Minister to give these replies tonight, but perhaps he will note the queries and let us know the answers at his earliest convenience.
How many people have benefited from rate rebates on commercial property and industrial property?
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to some areas of Belfast, especially in my constituency. Duncairn Gardens is one of the worst interface areas in Belfast. Some of the people living there have met the Minister in their fight in relation to the rates on commercial property there. Duncairn Gardens being one of the worst interface areas, unfortunately, people have been leaving the area very rapidly. The shopkeepers are trying to keep their doors open, but they are faced with tremendous rate bills.
With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, who spoke about Antrim as an expanding area and about my attention to Glengormley, no doubt at the next General Election my hon. Friend will have great joy in seeing his majority vastly increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is trying to catch up, but with the rate of increase in the population of Antrim and Glengormley, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South will keep his lead.
However, in these areas the rates are the same as the rates throughout Northern Ireland. But people are leaving the district very rapidly. Small shopkeepers are fighting tooth and nail for a living. Day after day some are forced to close their doors because they cannot meet their overheads. The greatest overhead for many of them is rates.
Unfortunately, we cannot compare the situation in Northern Ireland with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I should have thought that it would be possible in Northern Ireland to have a two-tier system of rating for commercial property. As I have said, in outlying districts which are expanding rapidly and are densely populated, districts which have experienced little or no trouble since the beginning of 1969, the shops are full and the people are spending money. Shopkeepers in such areas are finding that their businesses have had a tremendous boost, in outlying areas of Belfast and elsewhere. Yet they pay the same rates as those I have just mentioned in Duncairn Gardens and other parts.
I have said that Duncairn Gardens is the worst interface area in Belfast. I want to highlight one case involving a furniture store which is behind a security gate. Whenever any trouble erupts in the area, the gate is closed. That store is then completely cut off from the people. It has appealed against its rates, but the appeals system has to be seen to be believed. Solicitors and barristers have to be employed, and in 99 cases out of 100 the appeals fail. Such firms are having to pay exactly the same rates as companies elsewhere in Northern Ireland that are trading in peace and without hindrance or violence.
I realise that the Minister may not be able to give me the figures I have asked for tonight, but perhaps he will note my request and pass on the information in due course.

11.11 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to emphasise what the leader of our coalition, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) have said about the rating appeal system. The

Minister will have to put his mind to this problem. Rates soared as a result of the revaluation he mentioned, and we must have an appeals system in which justice is done to the individual and is seen to be done. That is not happening at the moment.
I have helped constituents with their appeals. Almost all of them are turned down. One feels they are inadequately investigated. No reasons are given and the arguments put to the valuation officers seem to be brushed aside as though the ordinary individual did not matter.
Many people from Belfast go to Newtownards to do business. It is an up-and coming business town, but the people behind the barricades in Belfast are finding life very difficult and, with the resurgence of IRA activity and bombs again being planted in the centre of Belfast, people who were coming into the city to do their shopping are being driven out again by these acts of terrorism. Something must be done to ensure equality in this matter.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: By leave of the House, I will reply to the debate, though I think I may have to gabble through as much as I can. Most of the anomalies and the questions put to me in the debate basically stem from the rating system in Northern Ireland. I will come back to that, but I shall try to get some other points out of the way first.
Most speakers have referred to the sports field exemption of 35 per cent. In England and Wales local authorities can offer any figure from nil to 100 per cent. I have tried to frame this proposal in line with the situation in England and Wales under the present rating system. In Northern Ireland the rating system comes under the Department of Finance. There are no local authorities in that sense. I can hardly operate a nil—100 per cent. system which involves using my discretion, as a local authority would, in each individual case.
The local authorities in Great Britain vary from being very generous to being very tight. Some pay and some do not. We have calculated that the average figure is 35 per cent.

Mr. Miscampbell: Is the Minister aware that in the North-East of England,


Bradford, Doncaster, Harrogate and Scarborough, relief of not less than 51 per cent. is granted? In general in the South of England 50 per cent. is the norm, and it is a rarity for an authority to offer less. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he cannot influence these matters, but in Northern Ireland, particularly, this is a most important factor. It is no good his merely saying that he cannot give 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. relief. We want to know why he cannot.

Mr. Concannon: I did not say that we cannot do it. I concede that from the broad range of cases the hon. and learned Gentleman can quote figures of 50 per cent. and more, but our figure takes in the whole range of relief offered between nil and 100 per cent. I can assure him that the average is slightly higher than 35 per cent. We could have exceeded that figure. Even at 35 per cent. there will be some winners and some losers, but not many either way. We are anxious to get this figure incorporated, because if it is not it will disappear by 1st March.
My noble Friend Lord Donaldson is consulting the Northern Ireland sports councils over the other matters, such as indoor sports arenas and bowls. The power is written into the draft Order to enable an extension of relief in subordinate legislation. Once the power is available and the consultations have been held, I understand that the matter will be brought before the House again.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to motions under the affirmative resolution procedure in the Assembly. These are the same as the motions under the negative resolution procedure in Westminster, and they may be prayed against.
Rate rebates taken up in Northern Ireland number 42,000 or 10 per cent. Rate rebates to that extent are not allowed for commercial purposes. However, grievances can be taken to the valuation officer, who can re-examine the rate. I am surprised at what has been said about the appeals procedure in Northern Ireland, because every household in Northern Ireland will be sent a copy of this procedure in the form of a booklet which will deal with valuation questions.
Any matters that I fail to deal with will, of course, be dealt with and hon. Gentlemen will be contacted.
Almost every hon. Member who has spoken tonight referred to the rating system. The rating system in Northern Ireland was forced upon us by the reorganisation of local government. It throws up quite a lot of anomalies. However, I have conducted some research into this matter, and many of the questions which hon. Gentleman have asked tonight were asked by the Minister of Finance in the Assembly on 4th April 1974. In his speech he said that with the reorgainsation of local government quite a lot of the important local services were transferred into central Government. He said:
In this new situation it was no longer appropriate, or even possible, to continue the old system and it was decided that the rate-payers contribution to the cost of these services should be made through a rate to be struck and collected by the Department of Finance at a uniform rate for the whole of Northern Ireland. It was also decided that the district councils—which replaced the former local authorities—should have power to raise a district rate towards the cost of the district services which they were to provide.
We cannot use the same principle for the district rate. This is one of the difficulties, because the regional rate could not be linked in any meaningful way to the cost of the services being provided. We have to find some other method of rating in Northern Ireland.
The method that was chosen was to select a comparable area in Great Britain on the basis of information as to average, total, weekly household income contained in the annual family expenditure surveys. on the argument that ability to pay rates and the kind of house a person lives I are related to personal household income. The United Kingdom Family Expenditure Survey for 1972, the latest year for which information is available, indicates that the areas in Great Britain which are most comparable to Northern Ireland are the North of England, and the Yorkshire and Humberside Regions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister not agree, with his experience of Northern Ireland, that there is no area in England that could be comparable at the moment with Northern Ireland in its present situation?

Mr. Concannon: That is certainly true at the moment. However, those carrying out the survey were looking for comparable areas with which they could equate the rates for the services being supplied. They picked these three regions because they were a broad cross-section of rural and urban areas and had the same sort of unemployment difficulties and the same relative lack of wealth as Northern Ireland.
The comparison of rates at that particular time for this area showed that the rates in Northern Ireland were 10 per cent. lower than those in the three areas. It might surprise hon. Gentlemen to know that at present rates in Northern Ireland are 27 per cent. below those in the areas named. Instead of the gap narrowing, as it should have done, it has broadened. Our information shows that an average increase of 14 per cent. was necessary, but it turned out to be nearer 30 per cent. Therefore, the differential widened. The differential between the rates in those comparable areas in the United Kingdom and what is being paid now on average in Northern Ireland is still 27 per cent.

Mr. Powell: These are interesting facts which the hon. Gentleman is giving the House. I hope that he will accept that this strengthens the case for a formal and detailed statement being made available when the rate is struck.

Mr. Concannon: That is why I am giving these figures and the intention behind them. At the time when it was done, there were great anomalies in area rates in Northern Ireland. For example, the domestic rate in the former Dungannon rural district was 70p in the pound, and in the former Banbridge rural district it was £3·06 in the pound. There was a great disparity, and some areas had to increase their rates more rapidly than others did. The difficulty is that one cannot equate the rate being levied with the services being applied.
It is fair to point out also that rates not collected as rates are collected in Great Britain will have to be paid, say, out of income tax, according to the formula which made up the rest of the addition to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Miscampbell: May I put a quick question, taking up the point made by

the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Why make any comparison at all? Why not simply base it on what Northern Ireland needs to raise?

Mr. Concannon: One had to base the regional rate on something. Once this came into the Department, one could not work a rating system such as we have over here where there are local councils in a relationship to their regions. One had to reach a formula, and this formula was adopted from the very start. It may not be to everyone's liking, but it was a way of reaching an equitable rate value for people living in Northern Ireland on the basis of a relationship to similar areas in Great Britain, those areas being, as I say, the North of England, Yorkshire and Humberside, because of the terrain and characteristics.
I do not know whether that satisfies hon. Members to any extent, but I thought I had better spell it out, since this is one of the bases of a lot of the problems of rating in Northern Ireland. I agree that if we could have shown the apportionment in a memorandum or note to all householders in Northern Ireland, showing just how it fitted in with the services being applied, that would have been helpful. But the Department is now, in effect, the local government authority, we are acting as a top tier of local government, and one had to find a formula. It is not perfect. I agree that it raises anomalies, and deputations come to see us about it at various times.
It should be remembered that the valuation for rating system in Northern Ireland is now 30 years old, and this is the reason for some of the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) referred. But revaluation will not in itself increase the rates. Obviously, with inflation at its present level, there will be some increase in rates. but that will not be due to the revaluation. That will have nothing to do with revaluation, but revaluation will provide a fairer distribution of the total rate that is applied.
Reference has been made to the appeals procedure. Under the Act appeals can be made against valuations at any time, and the old procedure can be started again. Appeals will be made to the tribunals. The appeals that can go right through will be listed and sent


out. All the information will be supplied. The people concerned will be told how and when they can appeal.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The complaint has been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) that it is costly to make an appeal. He said that very often expensive legal advice is required. Does the Under-Secretary of State think that the brochures will make legal advice unnecessary, and that those concerned will be able to conduct their own cases adequately?

Mr. Concannon: Mr. Concannonrose—

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (FIREARMS)

11.31 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This Order in Council amends the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, an Act which has already been amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 and the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973.
Last year we carried out a review of the firearms law in Northern Ireland. As a result of that review, the Government came to the conclusion that a number of amendments and clarifications could be made. The Order is intended to put those clarifications and amendments into operation.
I am afraid I must tell the House that there is no uniform theme running through the Order. Therefore, there is no alternative but for me to draw to the attention of the House the amendments which are being made.
The first amendment of substance is the abolition of the firearms permits. The permits, which are quite different from

the permits under corresponding legislation in Great Britain, allow a person in Northern Ireland to keep a firearm within his dwelling-house, but he is not permitted to use it. This was a device introduced in an earlier phase of the Northern Ireland troubles in the 1920s. There are now only about 1,300 permits on issue. The permits will continue in force until they expire. At that stage holders may apply for a firearms certificate.
The responsibility for issuing a firearms certificate is that of the Chief Constable, but I anticipate that he will permit the retention of weapons covered by permits by issuing firearm certificates. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that. There will be a modified fee to be charged for the grant of firearm certificates in those circumstances.
There are some minor amendments made to Section 10 of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland), the Act which permits exemption from the firearm certificate procedure. One addition to the section provides legal sanction for the use of air weapons at fairs and places of that sort. The police have been mildly indulgent towards such activity in past years. The amendment will bring the matter on to a proper legal footing and will regularise what is an innocent past-time. Institutions of higher education or approved research centres where studies in forensic medicine, ballistics or other matters were being undertaken were given special facilities for undertaking such work. As they all held their arms under a certificate, the exemption was unnecessary. Those institutions are being brought into line with the general law.
Firearm and shot-gun certificates issued in Great Britain are valid in Northern Ireland, but the law requires additional approval in Northern Ireland for shotguns held under the authority of a shotgun certificate issued in Great Britain. That is mainly because the tests for the grant of a shot-gun certificate in Great Britain are not as stringent as they are in Northern Ireland. The relevant Northern Ireland provisions will be redrafted to define more clearly the conditions under which firearms can be brought into Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier, and there has always been a traffic in


sportsmen from South to North, and vice versa. Until now residents of the Republic of Ireland coming to Northern Ireland for however short a time had to obtain Northern Ireland firearm certificates if they wished to take part in sporting events in the North. This is not satisfactory, and the law is now being amended to provide that a person normally resident in a country outside the United Kingdom may have a firearm or ammunition in his possession in Northern Ireland, for sporting purposes only, if he has the authority to possess that firearm or ammunition in his own country.
Regulations will be laid before the House under this Order to bring this into effect. They will apply to sportsmen from other European countries besides Southern Ireland.
As in Great Britain, persons who are convicted of crime in Northern Ireland are prohibited for certain periods after conviction from possessing a firearm certificate. In the case of a person sentenced to more than six months' but less than three years' imprisonment or borstal training, the prohibition extends for five years from the date of his release or, in the case of a person sentenced to three years or more, for life. There has been some difficulty in applying this prohibition in the case of suspended sentences, and in future, as a result of this amendment, the prohibition will extend from the date of conviction of the person found guilty, and not from the date of release. The prohibition will extend for eight years. Any person who is subject to such a prohibition, however, will have the right to apply to the Secretary of State for the removal of the prohibition, if he feels that he has a case.
The opportunity is being taken at the same time to amend the law to ensure that persons who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Great Britain are subject to prohibition in Northern Ireland, as is already the case in the reverse instance.
Whilst the Order was before the House for consideration, considerable interest was shown in the Government's proposal to raise the minimum age for possessing a firearm certificate from 16 to 18. As a result of representations made to us we have felt that we could make two

exceptions to the general rule. It has been represented that shooting for sport is a recognised international pursuit, and that to be proficient the earlier one starts the better. So we have provided that persons under 18 but above 16 may have a firearms certificate, provided that they are using it in the company and under the supervision of a person not under the age of 18 who holds a firearm certificate for that firearm or ammunition.
We have accepted that farmers have to deal with the problems of vermin control, and that the farmer may in some cases be a person over 16 and under 18. Accordingly, the Order provides that the Chief Constable may allow a young farmer within those age limits to acquire a suitable firearm for use on his land.
The Chief Constable, who is the controlling authority in all these matters, has powers to revoke a firearm certificate if he feels that the person holding it has no longer any good reason to have it. The law is now being amended to complement the existing power of revocation with the power to demand the surrender of the relevant firearm or ammunition when a certificate is revoked. At the moment, the Chief Constable has the power only to demand the surrender of the firearm certificate. I emphasise that this provision is in the interests of the former certificate holder. It legalises his position after the revocation of his certificate, as he cannot legally hold the firearm or ammunition after revocation. The firearm will be held safely in police custody until he can make suitable arrangements for its disposal.
At present, transactions between registered firearms dealers are not required to be notified to the police. There is a gap in the law here. The Order requires that a firearms dealer will have to notify the Chief Constable of any transaction involving firearms or ammunition, not only between himself and another dealer but also between himself and members of the public.
Certain weapons in Northern Ireland other than shot-guns and air weapons are ballistically tested and their characteristics recorded for forensic purposes. This being the case, it is important that certain repairs or alterations to firearms are notified so that arrangements can be made to have the


firearms retested if this is felt necessary, and the Order provides accordingly. It is the intention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to test ballistically all bullet-firing weapons when the present certificates fall in and have to be renewed.
I turn to the question of control over firearms clubs. There are about 57 clubs in Northern Ireland which are active. Three use full-bore or military-type rifles, about 20 use air rifles and the remainder are active on miniature ranges, usually using 0·22 rifles.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will the Minister say what decrease there has been in the number of clubs?

Mr. Moyle: I shall try to get that information for the hon. Gentleman before the conclusion of the debate.
All the clubs operate under the authority of a declaration of approval issued under the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819. This simply permits the members of the club to meet for target practice. The only other form of control is the need for the club or its members to hold firearm certificates for the weapons used. The Government do not regard that as entirely satisfactory. They regard it as an inadequate form of control, and the Secretary of State is now being given power to impose conditions on any declaration of approval granted under the 1819 Act. The conditions we have in mind are not unnecessarily strict. They will be concerned with keeping up-to-date records of membership and the security of club premises, equipment and ranges.
We have consulted the governing bodies of the sport about the proposed controls, and they have welcomed our suggestions in principle. An undertaking has been given to those bodies that the conditions and limitations to be imposed will be discussed further with them, after which regulations will be laid before the House embodying the conclusions of those consultations.
I hope that I have been able to give to the House an indication of the matters covered by the Order. It will improve and clarify our firearms legislation, and I commend it to the House.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: It has been generally appreciated by those in Northern Ireland who use firearms of all sorts that such a genuine form of consultation and discussion has taken place with representatives of user interests. It is refreshing to find that the most careful and constructive thought has been given to all representations made by clubs, individuals, the Joint Shooting Committee for Northern Ireland and many other responsible bodies. The result is that the Order has emerged much better than the original draft and it is likely to command much more general respect and acquiescence. That view is widely held in Northern Ireland amongst those concerned in these matters, and I am glad to have the opportunity to say so.
I will give an example. The Department and its officials made a careful response to the widespread criticism of the original proposals in Article 8, which relates to the acquisition and possession of firearms by persons under the age of 18. A much more sensible approach has now been made, recognising that, by simply banning possession of a firearm when under the age of 18, with a failure to recognise that the ages between 16 and 18 are the most formative years, and that, without prior legal handling of a firearm, adults could be loosed on the world with no training whatever, and recognising that the provision in its original form was an encouragement to law-abiding people to break the law and would positively have prohibited young boys and youths from entering employment, such as that of game keeper, where weapon handling is still necessary.
Article 3 simply represents a changeover from the present firearms permit system to the new certificate system. I would like an assurance that in the case of a substitution there will be no charge of £5, as would be the normal case with a renewal. In the case of a substitution, there is a minimum amount of administrative work, and possibly there could be no charge at all or only a nominal one.
Article 8 meets the approval of both sides of the House, but I have a point to raise about Article 9. Again, the Department and its officials were most helpful and co-operative. The worry was


that where a firearms certificate was revoked or not renewed, under the original intention it would have been difficult for the person who had possessed the weapon to have got a fair market price for it when he had to dispose of it. This has been put right by the amended form of the article. The article says that the chief superintendent "may" give notice in writing, but I hope that in practice he will always give notice in writing in order to give proper warning to a recipient of a revocation order, thus enabling him to get a fair price for his weapon.
The regulations in Article 12 are generally welcomed. It would really be preferable perhaps when if another Order of this kind is introduced provision was made for appeals from decisions to the courts, as in Great Britain, and not to the Secretary of State. It would be useful also in future firearms legislation if compulsory third-party insurance could be incorporated. I feel that this would be widely welcomed.
I hope that the splendid consultation which has taken place on this occasion—the really meaningful exchanges between the Joint Shooting Committee and the Department—will continue when future legislation of this nature is introduced.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: This is the second time this year that the thorny question of firearms in Northern Ireland has been discussed in the House. In discussing this difficult problem—made more difficult by some persons for political reasons rather than for reasons of logic—we should do it coolly and logically, dealing with the situation as it really exists.
I have read not only the present Order but the proposal for a draft Order with some care, and, among others, I made representations to the Minister in this regard.
Although the permit system is being phased out over three years, I regret that there is no automatic right of transfer of a firearm from a permit to a certificate. I hope the Minister will try to ensure that this matter is dealt with at least sympathetically, because many of the weapons have tremendous sentimental value to the persons holding them, and I do not think that any of them have ever been used for violence.
I welcome that otherwise such transfers will be treated as renewals, and I echo the words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that a reasonable fee might be charged, and I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again.
I have also noted with some interest what is now laid down concerning air-guns—6 ft. lb. kinetic energy for handguns and 12 ft. lb. for others. I understand that this will take out of circulation the pump-guns and the gas-operated guns, because they would normally be above that energy level. I welcome this more scientific approach to weapons used in fairgrounds and elsewhere.
Concerning Articles 5 and 6, I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how long the Great Britain or overseas authorisation will last in the case of people visiting Northern Ireland. Is this to be limited to countries within the European context or can it be extended to Commonwealth countries? Northern Ireland people have friends and relatives who visit them from Australia, the United States, Canada and elsewhere. What is to happen to people from areas such as the United States, where no firearms certificates of any kind are needed?
Further, can persons who come into the country with these overseas certificates buy ammunition for their weapons in Northern Ireland? That has not been made clear. Again, what would happen to the firearms at the end of the period covered by the certificate brought in by the visitor if he then settled in Northern Ireland? Would he have an automatic right of renewal, or would it be treated in such a manner that he could very well lose the weapon?
Do Articles 5 and 6 include competitive shooting?
Concerning Article 7, I have always thought that the punishment should fit the crime, and, if I am correct in my reading of the Act, while it would appear that it is very reasonable that a person should lose a firearm certificate for taking part in ordinary crime such as robbery or burglary—or, for that matter, for terrorist activity—what would be the position of persons imprisoned for drunken driving or for failing to obey a court order? Are they likewise caught in this net, or are they to have a very sympathetic hearing when they come out and want to take up their sport? It is


a small point, but some people will be caught by this.
Under Section 19 of the 1969 Act 1 recognise that if there is a sentence of over three years there is always an appeal to the Minister, but what is the position of persons given suspended sentences? What is the position of a person given a sentence longer than eight years? Will he automatically, under this legislation, get a firearms certificate when he comes out at the end because he has stayed inside beyond the period of time during which application cannot be made? What is more, does not Section 13 of the 1969 Act cover the point which apparently is dealt with in Article 7(3) which enacts the new subsection (3A)?
I give a general welcome to Article 8, but I ask the Minister to cast his mind back to 20th March, when he said:
The order will also raise the minimum qualifying age for a firearm certificate from 16 to 18 years, thus bringing the law into line with current practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 2039.]
On that occasion, was he saying that the police were putting into practice something that they had no legal right to do? My experience with at least one young man indicates that that was the case.
Article 8(3)(b) also says that if a person purchased or acquired a firearm or ammunition before the coming into force of the article at a time when he was not under the age of 16, he shall have the right to keep it. But if, as the Minister said in March, the police took the opposite view, cannot someone who may be 17 or nearly 18 now get a firearm certificate immediately? Is there any reason why it should be denied him?
I welcome the provision in Article 8(4) for young people to go shooting with their elders, in many cases their parents, and for a farmer's son to shoot on his parents' or his own land. But why the restriction on 0·22 rifles? That is probably the weapon most widely used for the control of vermin.
In Article 9, we read that "the chief superintendent" is the person who is to decide whether a person is competent to handle a firearm. Does that mean the local superintendent, who probably knows the person concerned, or one in RUC headquarters who has no idea with whom he is dealing and must rely on the

views of the local sergeant? This article meets the general points made, but I draw attention to that provision because it is important.
In Article 10(2) we read that the words "to purchase or require" are to be changed to "to purchase or acquire". According to the 1969 Act, the word "require" means to hire, to accept as a gift, or to borrow. Why is this change of a single word being made? What is the practical end result of the change?
As for Article 10(3) and the new subsection (1A), are we to take it from the change which has been made from that originally proposed that the responsibility for notification has been changed from the firearms dealer or gunsmith to the owner of the weapon? Does the firearms dealer or gunsmith have no further responsibility, which seems contrary to what was originally in the draft of this Order?
Moving on to Article 11, it appears mat paragraph (2) as proposed in the original draft order has been omitted. What is the reason for this? Are we to assume that the position is to remain as it was under the 1969 Act, with a fine of £200 for the misdemeanours created by that Act?
Does the change under Article 11(5) mean that the fine is now unlimited? If so, is it unlimited in the strict sense of the word? I find it surprising that there should be a time when a fine can be completely unlimited.
Article 12 deals with new restrictions on clubs, but there does not seem to nave been any clear and decisive effort made to lay down exactly what the requirements for clubs will be. This is something which I know my local club is most concerned about and wants cleared up as soon as possible. Clubs want to know the conditions under which they can operate so that they can get on with their sport. I must confess that I do not think that the Government have been very helpful to them. Indeed, one could say that a blank cheque has been given to the Secretary of State concerning this matter and that the House has been given no opportunity to discuss it.
I presume that existing clubs will have to re-register. Will that be automatic under this Order or will the process start from scratch?
There is a slight change in Schedule I which, in my view, seems to be tighter than before. I think that it should have been drawn up so as to include 0·22 rim-fire rifles, because those weapons are widely used. I accept that those rifles are rather more dangerous than perhaps a shot-gun, but they are not as lethal as some of the weapons which are floating around in Northern Ireland.
I too believe that we should have compulsory third-party insurance along with a firearm certificate. That has been overlooked in not only Northern Ireland, but in Great Britain. It is something which all true sportsmen would welcome. Some sort of help should be given to the shooting fraternity in Northern Ireland. In view of the large fees and the cost of game licences, surely something can be done to improve shooting in Northern Ireland?
A greater effort should be made to bring the law in Northern Ireland completely into line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. The people in Northern Ireland desire the same rights as their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom, including the same rights for young people. Moreover, the right of the citizen in Great Britain who has a statutory right to have a firearm should eventually be extended to Northern Ireland. It should not be a discretionary right which can be taken away at the whim of the police or the Secretary of State.
How many appeals against refusal to grant firearm certificates in the past 12 months have been successful? If the police are completely free from political pressure, as we are always assured and I certainly believe, why, if firearms are specifically a police matter, does the Secretary of State have to be brought in even on the matter of appeals? If we are so intent on getting rid of political pressure on the police, I should have thought that the courts, and only the courts, should be used to deal with appeals. Indeed, I look forward to the day when that is so.

12.4 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for the way that he met me and my colleagues and listened to our representations. We are grateful for some of the matters he has put into the Order.
I should like to echo that there has been a great deal of consultation, cooperation and good will between the shooting fraternity in Northern Ireland, the Minister, and representatives of the public. That is not always the case with Orders in Council.
The House realised a few minutes ago the inadequacy of legislating for Northern Ireland in this way. The Minister replying to the previous debate did not have time to complete his remarks. However, there has been adequate consultation on this Order. Our representations have been noted and would seem to have influenced or helped the Minister in coming to a decision which will be accepted by all people in Northern Ireland.
I hope that when we have other Orders in Council we shall have the prior consultation that we had in this instance as it will make it possible for representatives from Northern Ireland to take part in a meaningful debate of an hour and a half.
The people of Northern Ireland are grateful for the concession on the age limit. It is a good thing that a person over 16 years of age should be able to commence shooting as a sport as long as he is accompanied by an adult.
The provision concerning the farming community is also to be welcomed. It is right that a person over 16 years of age who resides on a farm should have the opportunity of possessing a shot-gun or 0·22 rifle. That point is deeply appreciated.
There are other matters to which I should like answers tonight. One concerns how the regulations will be made. I take it that we are dealing with an amendment to a Northern Ireland Act which was enacted by the old Stormont. I am told by officials in the Table Office in this House that regulations made by a Minister in Northern Ireland under an Act passed there cannot be prayed against. Therefore, the Minister has an opportunity of making Orders in Council and regulations about which we cannot do anything. I had occasion to wish to pray against a certain regulation, but I was informed by the Table Office here that I could not because it was based on a Northern Ireland Act.
Article 6 of the Order begins,
Subject to any regulations made by the Secretary of State


This article concerns people from a foreign country coming into Northern Ireland with weapons for sporting purposes. Will these regulations be made in such a way that Members of this House will have an opportunity to discuss them? Alternatively, will they be made under the Northern Ireland Act? If so, we shall have no opportunity to discuss them?
Article 12, which concerns the control of firearms clubs, refers to
an order made by the Secretary of State".
Is that an Order in Council made under the Act? Will it be made in such a way that we can discuss it in this House?
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) made the vital point that if we are to have no say whatsoever in these matters, the regulations being made under an Act passed at Stormont, the Secretary of State will have a blank cheque to do whatever he likes with no restriction upon him.
I would take up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Again, we have an outworn and out-done constitution under Article 2:
A Measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I would like to emphasise the arguments he put forward about the rating draft Order.
I wonder why in these Orders in Council we refer to something which is defunct. Even the most hopeful of upholders of the old Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Deputy Executive of that Assembly, would not believe there is going to be any resurrection. The Assembly is defunct and dead and has passed to the stage of corruption. None of us believes there is any hope for that measure. Why do we have mention again of the Assembly in this Order?
I come to paragraph 3 of Article 3, on the abolition of firearm permits. Paragraph 3 says:
A firearm permit which is in force at the commencement of this Order shall, unless previously revoked or cancelled, continue in force for three years or such shorter period as may be prescribed…".
Is that the period when the permit would cancel itself out, or is a period going to be prescribed for these permits? Perhaps the Minister will help us on that

Will it continue in force from the coming into force of the Order, or such shorter period as may be prescribed?
I thank the Minister for paragraph 4, in which he has given a proper concession to permit-holders. They are going to have the same relation to holders of firearm certificates when they come to renewal, and are not going to be discriminated against.
What is the law under Article 5 with regard to guns licensed in Northern Ireland and carried in the rest of Great Britain? Is there a reciprocal arrangement for a sportsman who has a weapon licence in Northern Ireland, and wants to go to Great Britain to take part in shooting and sporting activities? Will he have the same privileges as his colleague from across the water? Is a certificate issued in Northern Ireland at the present time applicable only to Northern Ireland, or does it enable the holder to carry his weapon in the rest of the United Kingdom?
We look forward to seeing the regulations under Article 6. There are people in the South of Ireland who are gun-holders, but who would not be welcomed by the people in Northern Ireland to come across the border with their guns, even if they were licensed. The Order says—
…if that person may lawfully possess that firearm and ammunition under the law for the time being in force in the country in which he resides.
I know this is going to be limited to regulations made by the Secretary of State. What sort of regulations has he in mind to keep undesirable people who hold guns in the South of Ireland out of the North of Ireland?
We are grateful for Article 8. When we were discussing this matter on a previous occasion, the Minister of State said,
the responsibility for the grant and renewal of firearm certificates rests solely with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary."—[Official Report, 20th March, 1975; Vol. 888, c. 2036.]
If that is so—and the Minister repeated it tonight—I fail to understand why Article 9 says
the chief superintendent refuses to renew it.
If it is only the Chief Constable who is "solely" responsible, surely the words in


the Order should be "Chief Constable" and not "chief superintendent".
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. If it is the chief superintendent, what chief superintendent? Is it the chief superintendent in the area in which the person who applies for the certificate resides, or a chief superintendent acting under the Chief Constable? I suggest that the particular line of the Order should read "Chief Constable ", keeping in line with Article 10(2) where "county inspector" is changed to "Chief Constable." I am sure that the Minister is aware that in Section 25 of the original Act it is the county inspector that is referred to.
As regards cases of appeal where a person has had a firearm certificate but the Chief Constable refuses to renew it, until the appeal is heard and decided upon will the owner be allowed to retain his weapon? This is a matter upon which we have all received representations. Our constituents say to us, "My application to renew my firearms certificate has been turned down. Can I hold on to my weapon until the appeal is heard?" The people concerned need to know exactly what their position is.
I wonder why the Minister has increased one fine from £20 to £50, and another fine from £200 to £400. For the lesser offence he is more than doubling the fine but for the greater offence he is only doubling it. I know that the amounts of money are vastly different, but what is the principle in regard to this matter?
For 14 years' imprisonment the Minister is substituting life imprisonment. What is life imprisonment? Some life imprisonment sentences prove to be not even 14 years. I am not sure what the Minister is doing in Article 11(2), where it says,
for the words '14 years' there shall be substituted the words 'life imprisonment'.
Will the Minister define what he means by life imprisonment? His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that in regard to life imprisonment for terrorists it was not an eight-year or nine-year sentence but was really imprisonment for life. Is that what the Minister has in mind?
We appreciate the manner in which the Minister has met with us.

Mr. Wm. Ross: When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement on life imprisonment meaning life imprisonment, he also stated that certain prisoners would have their sentences reduced by half. If a person is sentenced to life imprisonment under this legislation, how could it be reduced by half? What are the criteria to be used?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I conclude my remarks on a point that has been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson). Some 400 firearm certificates have gone astray in the post since 1st January this year. That is the information which my hon. Friend has received Would it not be a better procedure if certificates had to be collected personally at police stations? Those that have gone astray could be used as a cover in illegal operations. I hope the Minister will give this problem some attention.

Mr. John Carson: Does my hon. Friend realise that it would be easy to change the photographs on certificates that have gone astray and that they could then be used by members of illegal organisations to carry weapons under false pretences?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe the certificate of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry went astray in this way.

Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Member aware that in Great Britain firearms certificates are deliver by the police in person? In that way, there is no danger of the certificates being lost.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Evidently, that is the way it used to be done in Northern Ireland.
I would like to see the system changed so that appeals are made to the courts rather than to the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will keep in mind the number of certificate renewals that are refused by chief constables and then approved, on appeal, by the Secretary of State.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Gerrard Fitt: It has been said in similar debates in the past that legally-held firearms are no problem—in Northern Ireland. It is the thousands


of illegally held weapons that have led to the death of innocent people, and any legislation that loosens the law enough to put lethal weapons into the hands of potential murderers should be considered very carefully indeed. Shot-guns are lethal. I represent an urban constituency and I do not have a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members from rural areas who seem to want shot-guns in the home of every farmer in their areas.
One death would be sufficient to justify my case, but a number of people have been killed with shot-guns. A UDR man was brutally murdered with a shot-gun, and the police have not been able to apprehend his murdered, whether he came from the IRA or an extremist Loyalist group.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: There may be isolated cases, but has the hon. Gentleman any evidence that shot-guns are universally or generally used in terrorist operations in Northern Ireland? Would it not be rather surprising to find that, uniquely in Northern Ireland, they were used, when they are not used in this type of offence elsewhere?

Mr. Fitt: I agree that more lethal weapons like revolvers and machine guns have been used, but people have been killed with shot-guns. With most murders, it is possible to prove that the weapon was used, but I understand that forensic scientists cannot prove that a person was killed with a particular shot-gun. I live in Northern Ireland and I regard any legislation that enables more people to hold firearms as dangerous. Last year a young man from Antrim, who held a weapon quite legally, was killed in Belfast by men who intended to take that weapon. It would seem that they wanted that firearm not for sporting reasons but to use in the terrorist war which is now raging. Many people in Northern Ireland have had to forgo the normalities of life in the present tragic situation. Many of them have no social life, but stay in their homes after darkness falls. It would seem, therefore, that undue representations have been made for members of the sporting fraternity to be allowed to use these weapons.
I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian

Paisley) express reservations about firearms which are legally held in the Republic. I would be more general. Article 6 would seem to open the door for people from other parts of the world to bring legally-held firearms into Northern Ireland. There must be a contradiction here, because that article does not refer specifically to shot-guns. It deals with
Firearms lawfully held outside the United Kingdom
and that seems to include any type of weapon. Surely it is the job of the security forces to apprehend such people when they attempt to enter the country with those weapons.
Another provision enables a person in Great Britain with a legally-held firearm to use it in Northern Ireland. Again, there is no specific reference to shotguns, and that could permit the use of revolvers or other weapons. I should be interested to know how a person would get such a weapon into Northern Ireland. When I and my colleagues travel to Northern Ireland by air we are subjected to the most rigorous searches. I do not complain. The more rigorous, the happier I am, but there must be an inconsistency here. Perhaps there are even people who are allowed to carry firearms in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. In what circumstances would a person who is allowed to carry a revolver in Great Britain be permitted to take it into Northern Ireland?
Article 11 deals with punishment for firearms offences. It says
(2) In the entries prescribing the punishment for offences under section 14 (possession of firearm with intent to injure) and section 15 (1) (use of firearm to resist arrest) for the words "14 years" there shall be substituted the words "life imprisonment
I am no lawyer, but these two offences seem to me to be vastly different. If a person in Northern Ireland were found by the security forces to be carrying a weapon, could it be said in court that he held that weapon illegally with intent to injure someone? That could bring with it a maximum penalty of 14 years.
Section 15 of the 1969 Act deals with the use of a firearm to resist arrest. There can be no doubt that a person using a firearm to resist arrest is guilty of a serious crime and should be subject to the maximum penalty prescribed under the law. However, there could be some


doubt that a person who is found with a firearm may not—I think that some juries may be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt—have that weapon in his possession with the intention of injuring someone in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not believe that such a person would come before a jury in Northern Ireland. This would be a scheduled defence under the Diplock Commission.

Mr. Fitt: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but there could be a vast difference between the intentions of persons in possession of firearms under these circumstances. One person may deliberately resist arrest and use the firearm to resist arrest. I have absolutely no sympathy for him. However, the other person may have no serious intention of injuring anyone with the firearm in his possession. If he were brought before the special courts in Northern Ireland, which require no juries, he could be sentenced to the same term of imprisonment, namely, 14 years. The Minister should examine the uniformity of sentence that could be brought about under this situation.
I turn to Article 6. I question the advisability of allowing people into Northern Ireland with firearms certificates and, thereby, firearms. Many may say that they come from European countries and have come to Northern Ireland for the sport of rough shooting. Are there any EEC regulations that would make it imperative for the Government in Northern Ireland to allow such a free flow of personnel, firearms certificates and firearms?
I have reservations about any type of legislation that permits an increase in the number of firearms in Northern Ireland, whether they be legally or illegally held.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: We have had quite a wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked me about the statistics for rifle groups and similar organisations in Northern Ireland, and their rate of decline. There were 110 rifle clubs in Northern Ireland in 1970. There are approximately 80 in existence now, of which about 57 are active. Therefore, there has been a decline.
We appreciate that in the current security situation restrictions have to be imposed, and this will lead to a restriction on the enjoyment of quite a lot of people in the Province. Many in the Province recognise that they must inevitably face this situation. On the whole we are grateful for the co-operation of the gun-sporting community.
I am grateful for the expressions of thanks by the hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for the consultations which were organised. I have found some of them socially pleasant. That is an incentive to continue them on future subjects with even more enthusiasm in the future than there has been in the past.
A modified charge will be levied on the substitution of certificates for permits. I gather that the full charge will not be levied. I understand that the Chief Constable will be sympathetic to the substitution of certificates for permits. As the responsibility is ultimately his, I cannot be any more positive than that. But I should expect that permits would be substituted by certificates without any difficulty and that that would go ahead fairly well.
Several hon. Members raised the question of appeal to the court from refusal to grant a certificate, as happens in Great Britain. The executive control of firearm certificates is a long-standing practice in Northern Ireland. It has gone on, I think, almost as long as, if not as long as, Northern Ireland has existed as a Province. One of the reasons is that in a security situation which demands executive action, it would possibly not be to the advantage of either the police or the appellant himself for these matters to be aired in open court. That is something which hon. Members might like to consider in this context. There is also the sheer weight of business. About 700 appeals per annum might have to be heard, and this imposed on their normal business would create severe problems for the courts of first instance.
Another advantage of the executive procedure lies in the fact that, as the proceeding takes place outside court, it is probably quicker than it would be if there was an appeal to the court, and it is, of course, considerably cheaper. In view of what we heard about appeals


against rates in the earlier debate, perhaps that also is a consideration which hon. Members would bear in mind.
It has been suggested that there should be third-party insurance. It seems that there are not many shooting accidents resulting from the use of legally-held weapons; that is, among the sort of people who would follow the law and take out compulsory insurance if it were introduced. Moreover, with about 79,000 firearm certificate holders, compulsory insurance might provide added problems of enforcement for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which had substantial commitments in other directions. In any event, it is doubtful that in present conditions in Northern Ireland insurance companies would be willing to take on that type of business. For those reasons we are not attracted to the idea of compulsory third-party insurance.
There have been references to the nomenclature of police officers in the Order. The principal Acts in this connection and the subsequent amending Acts and Orders will be reprinted soon, and the standard nomenclature for police officers will be introduced into the legislation at that stage. The procedure is this. People should apply to the chief superintendent of the division in which they live, but he does not take the decisions. All questions of firearms appeals are referred to police headquarters at Knock, and the Chief Constable is the official responsible for taking the decisions on these matters, involving interviews, documents and the like, with an ultimate right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North questioned whether the Secretary of State should be involved in these matters. The fact that he is involved is always to the advantage of the appellant anyway, because if an application for a firearm certificate is rejected by the Chief Constable, there is always the possibility that the matter could be reviewed and a certificate granted by the Secretary of State. As far as I can recall, there has never been a situation in which the Chief Constable has allowed a firearm certificate and the Secretary of State has rejected it. The addition of the Secretary of State in the procedure is a matter which redounds generally to the advantage of the applicant.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I understood the Minister to say that if the Chief Constable granted a certificate it is hardly likely that the Secretary of State would turn it down, but the applicant would never go to the Secretary of State under those circumstances because his application would be granted. He would hardly appeal against himself.

Mr. Moyle: That is indeed the position. That is why the addition of the Secretary of State as a stage in the procedure is an advantage rather than a disadvantage to those seeking a firearm certificate.
A query has been raised about the number of appeals, and I shall try to find the list of appeals. I have the statistics.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Mr. Wm. Ross rose—

Mr. Moyle: Perhaps the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will contain his impatience for a moment.
In 1975, for example, 118 appeals were refused and 27 were allowed. That means that some appeals are allowed, which is to the advantage of the constituents of Northern Ireland Members. The equivalent figures for 1974 were 431 appeals, of which 69 were allowed.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Before we get too far away from chief superintendents, will the Minister tell us whether the local chief superintendents make recommendations to Belfast? If so, is it not upon their recommendation that the decision is taken in Belfast?

Mr. Moyle: There is also the question of policy that the Chief Constable has to take into consideration in reaching his final decision. In a number of cases there are interviews with the persons seeking a firearm certificate by other members of the constabulary. It is a Royal Ulster Constabulary operation, and the official responsible is the Chief Constable.
The hon. Member for Londonderry asked me many detailed questions. I can answer some of them, but if I miss any out I promise to write to him. As far as I can gather, people from other European countries will be allowed to bring their weapons into Northern Ireland for sporting purposes under the existing legislation. They will be able to bring ammunition with them if they are entitled to hold it for their weapons in their own country. The procedure is


that the person will have to have a firearms certificate for the use of his guns and ammunition in his own country. He will then have to get a certificate of approval for the use of those weapons and accompanying ammunition in Northern Ireland. That will be for sporting purposes only. The police will have a record of all people bringing guns and ammunition into Northern Ireland. The use of those guns and ammunition will be limited to sporting purposes. That is, of course, if people enter the country legally. If they enter illegally, that is another matter altogether.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: . Will the Minister explain under what powers the additional requirement of permission to use the firearm in Northern Ireland for sporting purposes is given? It does not appear on the face of the Order, but there may be provisions or powers elsewhere.

Mr. Moyle: That is the intention which the Order must bring about. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a more detailed explanation, I shall supply it to him subsequently.
A person who settles in Northern Ireland will be dealt with under normal Northern Irish firearms certificate law, once there is evidence that he is settling permanently.
The eight-years' prohibition from holding a certificate runs from the date of conviction, but that does not mean that after that period has elapsed the Chief Constable must give a person a certificate; the position is that after eight years a discretion exists for the Chief Constable to issue a firearms certificate.
The hon. Member also raised the question of what happened to people under the age of 18 under the law that we are amending. The Chief Constable had the right, within the powers given him, to refuse a firearms certificate to anybody up to the age of 90, let alone 18. He decided to exercise his discretion and apply the policy in such a way that those under the age of 18 would not generally be allowed to hold a firearm; therefore, we decided to raise the age for holding firearm certificates to 18, to conform with the general practice. At the same time, we have made two concessions, as a result of consultations

which I have already described, and the result is that probably rather more young people under the age of 18 will be able to hold and use firearms and ammunition, under certain conditions, than was the case before. This means that people under the age of 18 who feel that they come within the exempted categories can apply forthwith for a firearms certificate.
With all bullet-firing weapons the Chief Constable has a rather more restrictive attitude than he has with shotguns and similar weapons.

Mr. William Ross: Can the Minister tell me when the age was raised from 16 to 18? My understanding is that it was proposed in the draft Order that the age would be raised from 16 to 18, but the Order put before the House gives a discretion between the ages of 16 and 18.

Mr. Moyle: It would appear that my powers of exposition tonight are not as good as they are normally. The fact is that under the law that we are amending young people over the age of 16 could be given a firearm certificate if the Chief Constable of the RUC felt that they should have one in accordance with the general policy of granting firearm certificates. In fact, he so interpreted the general principles of the policy of granting firearm certificates that he did not readily—in fact, hardly ever—give a young person under the age of 18 a firearm certificate.
We are now amending the law to raise the minimum age for being granted a firearm certificate from 16 to 18, to bring the matter into conformity with the practice of the Chief Constable, but we have had representations from other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and from organisations concerned, to the effect that there was an argument for giving certain types of people practice in the use of firearms at as young an age as possible, because they would then be able to develop good habits in the handling of firearms. We conceded that there was a case, and we have made two exemptions. Young people under the age of 18 will be able to use firearms under two sets of conditions, which we have laid down in the Order. But the minimum age for


handling firearms will be raised from 16 to 18 by this Order.
I hope that I have explained to the hon. Member what we are about.
On the question of the registration of transactions by firearms dealers, after he has repaired a weapon such a dealer has no further responsibility for reporting that sort of thing, even though the ballistic signature of the weapon has been altered. That is a matter on which the RUC will be checking. Under Article 11(5) fines are unlimited.
The hon. Member for Londonderry made a final appeal that the law on the control of firearms should be the same in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain. When the situation in Northern Ireland becomes similar to that in Great Britain, I am sure that that factor will be borne in mind by the Government of the day.
In answering the hon. Member for Londonderry, I have answered most of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The relaxation in the minimum age of 18 was one of the improvements in the Order sought by him during the consultations. The hon. Gentleman asked about the procedure for the making of regulations. The advice of the Table Office, as one would expect, is an accurate assessment of the position, and there will be no opportunity on the Floor of the House for consultation on the regulations, but we shall consult the trade and sporting interests concerned before making them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to think of a way in which that process can be combined with his interest in the regulations. The firearm certificates granted in Northern Ireland can be used in Great Britain for shotguns, but I am not sure of the position with regard to bullet-firing weapons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) urged us to keep the control of firearms as tight as possible. The statistics which I have given of the decline in the number of rifle clubs show that that is taking place. We appreciate that this means a restriction in pleasure for a number of people, but we ask them to make that sacrifice in the present

serious situation. I have explained the way in which approvals will operate for people who bring weapons into Northern Ireland from the Republic and other European countries.

Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friend explained that a firearm certificate held by a person living in another country would have to be supplemented by a cover notice from the Northern Ireland authorities. When is that obtained? Does the person concerned apply to the Northern Ireland authorities before he enters the country, or does he wait until he gets there? If he is caught on the way from Newry to Bann Bridge, will he be committing an offence if he has not applied to Bann Bridge police station for a cover note?

Mr. Moyle: It would be wise for the person concerned to apply to the Northern Ireland authorities before entering the country. That course is guaranteed to result in the minimum amount of inconvenience.
My hon. Friend also asked about sentences. There is great advantage in flexibility in sentencing and charging. It is entirely a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the courts, who may possibly read our debates from time to time, in which case they may take note of what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Carson: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who referred to 400 firearm certificates which had gone astray? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be more convenient and more secure if applicants who were granted firearm certificates made arrangements with the police station to collect them?

Mr. Moyle: I can promise the hon. Gentleman that we will give consideration to the suggestion which has been made in the light of the problem, and see what can be done.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION)

12.55 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move,
That the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.
This Order has three broad purposes. First, we are increasing the capital grant for certain voluntary schools from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. The majority of the voluntary schools in Northern Ireland—more than 90 per cent. of them, in fact—have public representatives on their management bodies, and provision is being made to increase the rate of capital grant for these schools in Article 13 of the draft order.
In the case of maintained schools in Northern Ireland, the increased grants are in respect of the provision of alteration of premises. These schools are voluntary primary schools, including nursery schools, secondary and special schools managed by a committee of which one-third of the members have been appointed by the education and library board for the area concerned.
In the case of those voluntary grammar schools which have one-third of their governors appointed by the Northern Northern Ireland Department of Education, the increased grant will be in respect of provision or alteration of premises and provision of equipment.
This provision parallels the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Education Act 1975, which increased the rate of grant payable to similar schools in England and Wales, and arises from representations from the voluntary school authorities concerning the financial difficulties facing them—increased building costs, higher interest rates, and so on—which have affected Northern Ireland as much as England and Wales.
It is estimated that the cost of the proposed increase will be about £200,000 in the current year. In subsequent years, the increased cost will depend on the size of the building programme which the prevailing economic circumstances will allow.
We had a proposal that the increased rate of grant should be payable on all

work done after the operative date, 6th November 1974, but we have decided that it will be on work begun on or after 6th November 1974, since this brings us into line with the situation in England and Wales. The main object of the Order is to ensure parity between the situations in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland.
The second purpose of the Order is to give the Department of Education for Northern Ireland power to alter school leaving dates. Article 36 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 provides for two dates in the year on which pupils are treated as free to leave school. First, pupils whose 16th birthday falls between 1st September and 31st January may leave school at the end of the spring term following—that is, at Easter. Secondly, those pupils whose 16th birthday falls between 1st February and 31st August may leave at the end of the summer term. The present leaving dates in Northern Ireland are the same as those in England and Wales.
Last July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced the Government's intention to introduce legislation to bring forward the present summer term leaving date in England and Wales from the end of the summer term to the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday, and he hopes to make the change next year. It will mean that pupils whose 16th birthday falls between 1st February and 31st August in any year will be free to leave school on the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday. Since the school leaving age was raised to 16 some pupils who in earlier years could have left school on finishing the certificate examinations are no longer free to do so, although it is very difficult to seek to enforce continued attendance for a brief period thereafter. The raising of the age has meant that pupils who do not take these examinations, and who previously would have left school at 15, are now required to remain at school over the period when many of their fellow pupils are taking examinations and when normal school work is affected.
While in Northern Ireland the problem is less serious than in England and Wales, in that the summer term ends some three weeks earlier than in England and Wales, there is general support for bringing the


leaving date in Northern Ireland forward to the Spring Bank Holiday.
Article 4 of the draft Order empowers the Department to make the necessary amendment to the 1972 Order. Then we are left with a situation in which there would be two school leaving dates in any one year, separated by a very few weeks. In consequence, the proposal has been made that we should have one school leaving date for the year, and that would be the Friday before the Spring Bank Holiday. We are consulting all interested parties in Northern Ireland on this particular point, and a final decision has not yet been reached. But we are taking the power to have one school leaving date for the year.
I now turn to the remaining provisions of the Order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Could the Minister state whether the reference in Article 4 to affirmative resolution in respect to such an Order is valid at the moment, or is it another of those "might-have-beens"?

Mr. Moyle: As far as I am advised, this is valid at the moment and is not a "might-have-been".
The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 was a complete recasting of the education administration in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that one or two rough edges have been revealed in the last two years of operation. The rest of the Order is a way of polishing those rough edges and, I hope, making the machinery work more smoothly in the future than in the past.
With the permission of the House, I do not intend to go into all those minor alterations—they are fairly technical in most cases—but if hon. Members have questions on them I shall do my best to answer them at the end of the debate.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Lord President of the Council has announced that housing in Northern Ireland is to be discussed in the Northern Ireland Committee. The House may also desire to debate education in Northern Ireland at length on some future convenient occasion.
I was glad to hear that there is to be consultation on this question of the school leaving age. In my own constituency the inflexible system that we have had has caused inconvenience and even distress.
Could I ask the Government's opinion on two controversial educational questions? First, with reference to Article 13 of the Order, that on integration of schooling, through which some seek to bridge the so-called sectarian divide—not a phrase I like very much—whatever I or any right hon. or hon. Member may think, such integration does not appear to be practical politics at this time.
However, in the spring of 1974 Mr. Basil McIver, who was Minister of Education in the then Executive, put forward his proposal for shared education, under which children of different denominations would be educated in the same schools under joint church management. Mr. McIver wanted to start with nursery schools. What has happened to that scheme and what is the attitude of Ministers to it?
Secondly, may I ask the Minister to confirm that whatever the Government's views have been on the 11-plus, which is often a red herring across the trail of discussion of the reorganisation of secondary education, it is still his view that the final shape of secondary education in Northern Ireland will be left to be decided by a locally elected assembly?

1.5 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) touched on matters which I, too, wish to refer to briefly.
Article 13 of the Order bolsters, solidifies or strengthens a system, two features of which deserve special consideration. One of them is selection in education and the fact that we still have in Northern Ireland a system based on selection at the age of 11. Even a brief indication of how far the Government are prepared to move on this and of how they can use the concept of parity, as they have just done in financial terms, when they have a radically different policy on education in Northern Ireland from that in the remainder of the United Kingdom would be welcome. There is at least some demand in Northern Ireland for a move away from selection. I have seen corre-


spondence of this kind seeking a change, and the evidence from Craigavon suggests that there is a feeling amongst some parents that alternatives should be available to them as they are to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The other issue to which I refer is that of sectarian education, and the continued existence in Northern Ireland of a system which effectively ensures that the two religious communities are not educated together and that formative growing years are spent narrowly confined within the schools of a denomination or in State schools attended largely by members of the Protestant community.
There cannot be many of us who would deny that this separation has an effect in limiting the understanding that members of one community have of the other and that less separation is desirable. This could not be achieved in a short time. Nor would it be achieved by simple alterations in the management structure of schools. What is important is whether children at some stage in their education have the opportunity to be taught in company with or perhaps by teachers who normally teach members of the other community. The importance is not in the management of schools but in the mixed opportunities of children and the extent to which they can learn something of the other community and avoid a one community view of history, which seems to be perpetuated in some schools.
But the ending of this kind of sectarian education would not be the panacea that some people believe. Even if, by some miracle, we could accomplish a change in the pattern of education, it would not reverse the problems that we face in Northern Ireland. I am convinced, however, that the persistence of this system over a long period and the extent of the separation which exists in childhood undoubtedly exacerbates the problems that we face and makes it more difficult for members of one community to understand the problems and attitudes of the other.
In that context, I want to quote what the Minister said in an Open University broadcast which suggests much less of a desire to change the system. The interviewer put it to the Minister that some people felt that not only should the social classes mix by a move towards compre-

hensive education in Northern Ireland but that different religious groupings should be mixed as well. The Minister said:
I would react against that very much. I think that you can have two separate comprehensive systems, a Catholic one and a State one side by side, as you've got in certain areas of this country"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Strictly speaking, the Order does not deal with integration of the school population in Northern Ireland. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate what he is saying to the contents of the Order.

Mr. Beith:: With respect, I suggest that Article 13 increases the aid for the voluntary sector of education from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. In my view, it is a clear strengthening of the system in Northern Ireland whereby a large part of education is conducted by voluntary schools drawn from the minority religious community.
The Minister indicated that there are financial reasons for the difficulties faced by those schools which argue for an increase, as in the United Kingdom. It seems to me that an increase from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. does not represent any lessening of the Government's determination to maintain this pattern. It is with that in mind that I quote the Minister of State's remarks. He said:
…in certain areas of England, Wales and Scotland you have had the Catholic authorities coming to the local education authority and saying we'll go in with you in your comprehensive scheme. If Catholic bodies in Northern Ireland genuinely volunteered to take part in that sort of exercise well I would be only too delighted to assist, but there is no intention of using comprehensive secondary education as a way of tackling the sectarian separation of Northern Ireland schools. I'd be totally opposed to that.
In the context of increasing the support to voluntary schools and strengthening that system, it might be opportune and helpful if the Government could give some clear indication whether they would like to see some elements of integration across this sectarian divide—that may be an unhappy phrase but it has some real meaning in Northern Ireland—or whether they wish to defer any further consideration of this matter until a new system of government has been established in the Province.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I only rise to congratulate the Minister. Under Articles 5, 6 and 7 it appears that the education boards are now permitted to give financial assistance to the children of poor parents throughout Northern Ireland. For many years children of poor parents, whatever academic qualifications they attained, were sometimes placed in the embarrassing position, on passing an examination, of transferring to a different school, and their parents were put to great hardship in trying to find the money to pay for their new uniforms. That problem affected children from both the majority and the minority communities. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), I am sure, has experience of these matters.
Free school dinners sometimes cause grave embarrassment not only to the children who receive them, but even more so to their parents. A certain stigma is attached to such children because they come from poor families and their parents cannot afford to pay for their dinners. The education boards throughout Northern Ireland are taking a progressive step. Throughout my political life I have been aware of the severe hardships imposed on families when children are transferred after passing an examination to—for want of a better word—a superior school. There was more class consciousness.
In Northern Ireland there are many labouring families and they do not attain the same type of wages as people in other parts of the United Kingdom. Many of those working-class families are in receipt of family income supplements, but even so they are unable to afford the necessary uniforms to enable their children to attend school.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that local tribunals were unable to give grants for uniforms. They could give grants only if the children's clothing was inadequate. This point is covered in this Order, and it is most acceptable to all sections of the community.

Mr. Fitt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He, like me and most hon. Members, has attended local tribunals in the interests of constituents. On many occasions I have put forward a case similar to the one which he has illustrated and

the appeals tribunal has been unable, because of the regulations, to grant any financial assistance towards the provision of a uniform for a certain child.
This is helpful legislation, and I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Order. However, I find some confusion in the Order. The articles to which I have referred relate to grant-aided schools. I wonder whether there is a division between grant-aided and voluntary schools. If help is to be given, it should be given to the children or the families who are in need. It should not be restricted to any one type of school. I feel sure that in reply the Minister will allay my fears by saying that the education boards will consider the welfare of the children involved and will take every possible step to help them in this rather embarrassing position.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. McCusker: One always gets some satisfaction when rising to welcome an Order, one hopes, for the improvement of educational facilities in the Province.
I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) about wanting parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not normally need to ask for educational parity. There are already moves afoot to eradicate selection at 11-plus in Northern Ireland. However, we want parity on such things as the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill, on devolution, and so on.
I particularly welcome Article 13, which raises the grant from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. for the voluntary schools. However, my welcome is tinged with regret, because, until quite recently, Northern Ireland was always in advance of England and Wales in its assistance to voluntary schools. Indeed, hon. Members from Northern Ireland could take people on trips round their constituencies and show them the benefits of grants not only to voluntary schools, but to State schools.
Our educational facilities in Northern Ireland are second to none, as I am sure the Minister will agree; but I have reservations, as he has, about the effects of what might be called sectarian education. I have personal experience of childhood friendships being wrenched apart by sectarian education. We must


concern ourselves with the problem which has undoubtedly created that situation. I do not want to make too much of it. Sometimes such problems need to be looked at and questioned by people from outside Northern Ireland.
I am sure that many childhood friends would have grown up into adult friends, but those friendships were destroyed between the ages of 4 and 10 because we went our separate ways and developed new friendships. Those friendships which had perhaps been formulated on the street corners were destroyed by the educational system, and that is a cause for concern.
Like the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), I have personal experience of the provision made in Article 7. I must be careful what I say now. I have a very proud working-class mother who will read with interest what I say tonight. I was granted a scholarship to a grammar school. My mother, who was a widow, could not afford to provide the uniform which would have been demanded. Of course, I was adequately and warmly clothed, but not always in the uniform demanded by the school. I am thankful for the understanding of the staff at the school and of colleagues. I never felt any sense of injustice or grievance that I did not have the complete school uniform. It may be that I had a thick skin even then. However, I am sure that there are some sensitive children and, indeed, parents who feel the effects of such a situation.
I am slightly concerned that Article 7 is not specific. It says
Subject to a scheme which shall be framed by a board and approved by the Department…
I would have preferred the Minister to have come to the House tonight and said that he was introducing a scheme which would give assistance across the board and that individual boards administering education would not be given discretion in this mater at all. I do not know why this provision has been introduced in this fashion, but I welcome it, along with certain of the other provisions.
In looking at the difficulty of the school leaving age, the Minister is tackling a very difficult problem. Although be may bring the school leaving age closer to the

end of May, for some children he is still, as he says, going to be confronted with the two-date situation. Will the Minister say to those children who want least of all to remain at school after Easter that they are going to have to wait a further six weeks, as it might be, or is he going to move the date back to Easter for everyone?
If adequate provision had been made to train teachers to deal with average and below-average 15-to-16-year-olds, and if adequate financial provision had been given to the schools to develop courses for these children, perhaps we would not be faced with the problem of 16-year-olds breaking their necks to leave school. They would have been staying on to get some benefit from it. Perhaps we should be bending our mind to that matter instead of tackling the problems created by that situation.
If we are going to have one school leaving age, it should be at Easter, because the majority leaving on that date will, in all probability, be average and slightly below average ability. They might well be moving into the construction industry, because there is usually an up-turn in that industry with opportunities for employment before the peak of the summer leavers arrive on the scene.
One or two things concern me. The suggestion that we make payments to the chairmen of these boards brings us to the thorny problem of undemocratic boards. These are boards appointed by the Minister, answerable to no one, and they frequently comprise people rejected by the electorate when they stood for office in local government, or at other levels. I do not know why we should consider paying chairmen. I do not know whether we have got our priorities right. If we have not been paying them up to now, why should be start? The whole question of payment for people serving on boards is under close scrutiny. I do not want any extension of it.
Article 11 provides for the insertion in the principal Order of the following article:
Subject to any direction which may be given by the Department, a board may either alone or together with another board or other boards defray or contribute towards the expenses of bodies to which the Board is affiliated or of which the Board is a member.
What are these other bodies? May we have some specific examples? If we have


them, I may accept them without question. I do not like the blanket, open-ended way in which this is phrased.
Paragraph 5 of the Schedule says,
In Article 68(b) before the word "incurred"—
which obviously means further expense—
there shall be inserted the word 'reasonably'"—
at least someone is being prudent now; it is to be "reasonably incurred expenses"—
and after the words 'distinguished persons' there shall be inserted the words ' residing in or'.
I presume that is a means whereby one intends to reimburse or grant reasonable expenses to certain distinguished persons whether or not they reside in Northern Ireland. I should like clarification as to further expenses. I am concerned about another matter. When we talk about educational expenditure. I wonder if some of the expenditure being considered here should not be going in another diection, which may have equal bearing on education in the Province. I was told by the Minister this week that there are approximately 400 teachers in technical schools who do not have a contract of employment. If they do not have a contract—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a matter that is not in the Order. Even though we have plenty of time, he ought to keep to the actual Order that we are discussing.

Mr. McCusker: The Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is obviously concerned with specific expenditure on education, and I am arguing that some of its provisions ought to be delayed and that the expenditure could be better used in other directions. However, I shall deal with the matter briefly.
If 400 teachers in technical schools in Northern Ireland do not have a contract, are we not in grave danger of getting our priorities wrong? If it requires £250,000—which is what the Minister has told me is required—to settle the grievances of the technical school teachers, would not the Minister do better by using the money that he has to settle those grievances instead of considering reimbursing the chairman of

committees and spending money in other ways, for distinguished persons and so on?

1.30 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) with regard to the provision of clothing for pupils under Article 7. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that it is to be regretted that no firm proposals are put forward in the Order.
I take it that when the Order refers to "the board" it is referring to the Education and Library Board of the particular area. Will the Minister tell us the type of scheme upon which his Department would look favourably, because Article 7(1) says,
a scheme which shall be framed by a board and approved by the Department."?
Therefore, the Minister must already have certain criteria in mind. We should like some information on this matter as a guide to this provision.
I am totally opposed to payment for the chairmen of these boards. The people of Northern Ireland do not like these boards because they are not democratically elected and the majority of their members have no standing in the community. They have submitted themselves to the electorate and been utterly rejected. Some have forfeited their deposits. Because of political pressure they are entered on these boards. What is more, the part of which I have the honour to be the leader and which came third in the total number of votes cast at the election for the Convention, the Democratic Unionist Party, has never had one member put on any board. It is completely discriminated against. That is the type of thing that is happening in Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, these boards are taking decisions which are against the interests of local people because they do not represent them. They are closing down schools which should not be closed. I was making representations to one of these boards the other day when people from outside the particular district were trying to close a primary school against the wishes of the parents in the area. That is the sort of thing that we shall not tolerate in Northern Ireland. It is time that the


Minister took a hard look at the democratic composition of these boards and tried to get local people on to them, people who know what the residents of the area require.
I am totally opposed to giving any money to the many chairmen of these boards. They are not even elected members. They get into their positions by political skulduggery and by certain pressures that are put on them.
Perhaps the House does not know that there is no Protestant school system in Northern Ireland. There is a State school system. Some hon. Members talk as though there were a religious divide, with Roman Catholic schools and Protestant schools. There are Roman Catholic schools and State schools. Some Roman Catholic children attend some of these State schools, and some Roman Catholic teachers teach in some of the State schools. Let us get that matter absolutely right.
The sad thing, however—which I raised many years ago, when I first became a Member of this House, and which was not accepted by the then Government—is that the dead hand of the old school management committees is still controlling the State schools today. If a school had its foundation in a particular Protestant denomination, the majority of the management board still reflects that—even though the school may have moved its location and have different denominational connections. The Minister must face up to this problem.
We all appreciate that the problems in education in Northern Ireland are difficult, and I hope the House will be informed of all the details of the situation.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh when he spoke about priorities in education. In my constituency I am worried about the number of people who should be attending teacher training institutions, but have not received the grants enabling them to go. This is very serious and concerns all sections of the community. Classes in Northern Ireland schools are getting far too big and we need more teachers.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I will not attempt to compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh

(Mr. McCusker), who brings to this subject unrivalled experience and knowledge, but I know he will not take it amiss if I add to his list of priorities our greatest priority—equal representation in this House.
I do not need to underline the discrimination being practised against my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his followers. He has certain vocal powers which enable him to speak for himself, but, if at any time he is in difficulties, I will be only too willing to lend him any assistance within my power, if he likes to come south over the border between our constituencies at Kells and Connor.
I wish to refer to the closure of the Aghagallon Victoria primary school. When the proposals for a school replacement programme were formulated in 1970, the population pattern of the village of Aghalee, in which this school is situated, was very different from that of today and that of the near future when extensive housing developments are completed. Work on these houses is already under way, and it is clear that the village will become the largest in the south-west corner of County Antrim. It may be more economical in some circumstances to amalgamate several small schools and replace them with one modern building, but in this case so many children will have to be bussed that savings could be rapidly outweighed by escalating and continuing transport costs. The Minister of State was kind enough to write to me on 29th October pointing out that the statutory development scheme was followed in this case, but that only one formal objection was submitted—from the Rector of Aghalee, the Rev. S. J. Brennan—so it was decided that an inquiry need not be held. In the strictly legal sense, this may have been correct, but surely it was clear to the authorities that Mr. Brennan was submitting a collective objection on behalf of all the parents who were present at the meeting, to which the Director of Education was invited and which he attended. I appreciate that the Minister may be in some difficulty since the new replacement school is in the course of erection, but I urge him to take no steps which would tie his hands and prevent him from reversing this unpopular decision.

1.35 a.m.

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he hoped that we would be able to debate education more fully in the Northern Ireland Committee at some stage in the not-too-distant future. I am willing to take part in a debate of that sort whenever it can be arranged, if that is the wish of the House. I have no doubt that the Lord President, who is responsible for these matters, will take note of the remarks which have been made.
We have had a general discussion of the question of shared schools and selection in education which apparently revolved around an incerase in the grant from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. for voluntary and maintained schools, and on the proposal which was put forward by Mr. Basil McIver. When I arrived in Northern Ireland this proposal had been made. It was not for the integrated education of any schoolchildren but for a new form of management committee which would represent the religious interests on both sides of the sectarian divide and to which children of both major persuasion could readily resort when they wished.
I encouraged consultations to proceed on that idea, but I concluded that there was insufficient support for blanket legislation along those lines and I announced this at the conference of Association of Education and Library Boards in the summer. We are not proceeding any further along that line.
On sectarian education, it should be made clear that the situation in Northern Ireland is not all that different from the situation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. If Roman Catholic or Anglican parents in England and Wales want their children to receive a religious education they are entitled to set up their particular schools, assuming that there is a need. They are entitled to receive appropriate grants and have separate education. A system which works without too much difficulty on this side of the water, however, might give rise to implications in Northern Ireland. I accept that this helps to sharpen the division in the population, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said, but that division already exists and it would not be solved by the forcible mixing, if that

could be achieved—and it could not—of children of the various religious persuasions. For that reason it is just not on the cards to combine comprehensive and secondary reorganisation with the abolition of the sectarian divide.
This is entirely a matter for parents in Northern Ireland. Personally, I should like to see the children come together, but that is only a personal point of view, and it would be counter-productive to try to force them into secondary schools which eliminated not only the class division but the sectarian division as well.
The abolition of the 11-plus and selection at that age was referred by my predecessors to a committee of educational experts chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of the new University of Ulster, Alan Burgess, and it came up with a report which said that selection at the age of 11 should go. That was the situation when I arrived in Northern Ireland about 18 months ago. The committee suggested various means by which this educational reform could be brought about, but did not produce a firm recommendation for the practical abolition of selection itself. Therefore, I have appointed the very respected Senior Chief Inspector, Mr. Tom Cowan, to go round the Province and work out a practical plan by means of a feasibility study for achieving the abolition of selection at this stage. He will probably report about March next year. When that takes place I shall be committed to consultations with the various educational interests, including the governors of voluntary grammar schools, as to how we should proceed.
That is the stage that the exercise has reached in the reorganisation of secondary education. I was asked if I planned to leave it to a locally elected assembly. It was certainly my ambition that the matter could be dealt with by a locally elected assembly. That is why we had a Convention and why the Convention has reported. However, it is a matter of time, and one cannot hold up indefinitely in Northern Ireland the general advances in education which are prevalent in the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like to leave the matter there. Whether it takes place at a locally elected assembly is a matter very much for hon. Gentlemen.
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) for his kind words about


the provision of clothing for children, and I thank other hon. Members who have made similar remarks. We are grateful for those thanks. Children attending all schools will be included because in practice almost all schools in Northern Ireland are grant-aided. However, we shall be examining in particular schemes for those over 18 years old.
The hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Armagh considerably criticised the area boards. There was also a reference to the reorganisation of primary schools in the Aghagallon area. I do not have any quasi-judicial functions to exercise in that case. I visited the schools after I had received a letter from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), and, to my prejudiced eye, they looked very small. I appreciate that there can often be a great gain in human contact in such small schools, but, on the other hand, we can give children a better education in schools that are a little larger than the three affected by the particular reorganisation scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The idea that irresponsible education boards go around closing down schools left, right and centre is a description of the situation which bears no relationship to reality.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisleyrose—

Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. Every time a school is closed a public procedure has to be followed which involves the parents. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, South he would have realised that the parents were given an opportunity to exercise their objections in that case.
A number of members of area boards are appointed by district councils, which are elected, and others are appointed by me on the advice of Government machinery. The bona fides of people are thoroughly investigated before they are appointed to area boards.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Rev. Ian Paisley rose—

Mr. Moyle: In any case, area education boards were introduced into Northern Ireland with a view to being a substitution for the local government system, which, quite frankly, was not accepted

by a large number of people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the sectarian divide. It is, indeed, difficult to get general acceptability of elected local government in Northern Ireland. I am trying to give extra powers to district councils which, in the sphere of sport, recreation and community provision, they will be able to undertake. However, I have to drag about half the Province along with me when I try to give them these extra powers, and there is no great enthusiasm for democratically locally elected government in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not right for the Minister to put words into my mouth. I never spoke of the closing of schools right, left and centre. The hon. Gentleman should be careful in what he says. What I said—I repeat it and I defy the Minister to contradict it—is that these people on area boards who are not in any way connected with the local districts in which the schools are closing, and they form the majority on the boards. People who have absolutely no say in a local parish come along to an area board meeting, and when representations are made by the parents and by local clergymen—I have led some of the deputations—these people vote to close those small schools. I can give examples from Canalbana. I can give a whole series. The Minister knows about it.
I made no accusation about closing down schools right, left and centre. I said that the people who were helping to close them, nominated by the Minister or by his predecessor, are people who know nothing about local circumstances in the area. That is all. Also, I say that of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall certainly not allow a second speech to be made in the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Moyle: It all depends on what one means by local. The fact is that all members of area education boards are selected from the area covered by the board on which they serve. The whole of Northern Ireland is not all that large. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's idea of locality is different from mine.
The hon. Gentleman said also that there are no such things as Protestant schools in Northern Ireland, and there is a State education system. I think that that argument might be maintained, but


it is worth while recalling that a number of schools which entered the State system were originally owned by various churches, and in pretty well all cases they were Protestant churches. The Protestant churches concerned were quite rightly at that stage given representation on the governing bodies of the schools. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that when those schools were replaced by other schools, those representatives of the Protestant churches were transferred to the new schools as well.
Therefore, there is to that extent some justification for, perhaps, humantarians, Roman Catholics or others having some reservations about sending their children to such schools. Although it was impracticable, that was the idea behind Basil Mclver's proposals in May 1974.
I turn now to another matter. The shorthand intervention by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my shorthand reply to it may not have led to the meeting of minds which I thought it had achieved, so I shall read out a definitive statement of the position, lest there be some confusion. The provisions for affirmative resolutions contained in the Education and Libraries Order, while the Northern Ireland Act 1974 remains in force, mean that the statutory rule will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House at Westminster—that is, a negative resolution, and there can be a Prayer against it.
I am glad that, generally speaking, hon. Members have been favourably disposed to the Order, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (BANN RESERVOIR COMPANY)

Resolved,
That the Bann Reservoir Company (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (INSURANCE COMPANIES)

Resolved,
That the Insurance Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th November 1975, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 22nd November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on Overseas Development, Mr. Michael Marshall be discharged from the Committee and Mr. Richard Luce be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 22nd November in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman be discharged from the Committee and Mr. John Cope be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament:

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That the Lords Message of yesterday relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committe be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider:—

(1) every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft statutory instrument;


(b)a scheme, or an instrument of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;
(c)any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or
(d)an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;


(2) every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures:

with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment;
(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;
(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;
(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(vii) that for any special reasons its form or purport call for elucidation;
(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

or any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case.

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-committee

or Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.

Ordered.
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from time to time, and that any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument.

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, relating to the printing and publication of any instrument.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any memorandum submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instrument.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

(a)statutory instruments, or drafts of statutory instruments;
(b)schemes, or amendments of schemes, or drafts thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or
(c)any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution;

and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on


any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House; and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House until the end of this Parliament.
And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Andrew Bennett, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. John Lee, Mr. Roger Moate and Mr. R. Graham Page.

Ordered,
That the members of the Committee nominated this day shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

Ordered,
That the foregoing Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Ordered,
That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — TIED COTTAGES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

1.51 a.m.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: The subject of this Adjournment debate is the beauty and the preservation of the beauty of our countryside. Let us remember that the countryside as we know it is not something that has just appeared as if by magic; it is the work and the partnership between the farmers and farm workers and nature itself. That has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years. Future generations will not forgive us if we destroy this heritage. If we do anything to harm it, we cannot repair the damage.
Although at this late hour of the night or early hour of the morning I shall be referring to a part of the country which I represent, an area which is in a national park, I wish it to be known that I am speaking of the whole of the British countryside.
Let me make it quite clear that I do not intend to refer to legislation which is pending. I freely admit that I believe that productivity would be seriously affected were there to be a significant change in the tied cottage system. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in Scotland the farm workers do not want a change in the tied cottage system. They realise how it would affect their jobs. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if I am wrong. I thought that the Minister was suggesting I was wrong.
I understand that there are real fears. When the Rank Centre examined the problem of tied cottages the question of insecurity emerged, and I realise the problems of the sick and of old age. In my constituency of High Peak, the local authority is fully aware of the problems. It has told me that it has found no problem concerning the sick or the tied cottage agricultural system. In its planning it has been able to ensure that when farm workers retire they are housed not in the towns but in the villages close to where they have spent their working lives.
I make two environmental points. First, houses are in the wrong places. Secondly, people are in the wrong places. Quite rightly, on planning grounds houses are not allowed in certain areas except for agricultural purposes. I believe it is right that houses which have been allowed for agricultural purposes should be so designated and should be maintained for agricultural purposes. They should not be sold as a part. They should be sold if the whole farm is sold. They should not be let.
If, as a result of a change in the tied cottage system, a position arose in which that situation was against Government policy, what would happen if the farmer lost his cottage? We could not look to him to build new cottages; he would not have the money. Somebody would have to find a cottage for the necessary worker, and if that worker subsequently decided to leave and work in the city there would be a snowball effect. This happens in the Hope Valley, in my constituency. Local people are not able to afford houses because people come in from the cities and buy them. Local authorities would


have to house the farm workers either in the villages or in cheaper houses in the towns. As an alternative, local authorities might have to buy all the farm cottages and run them entirely on an agricultural basis.
That is an attractive idea at first sight. It was put forward by Lord Sandford in his report. But it presents many problems of administration. It presents the problem of deciding who is a full-time agricultural worker; it presents problems of rent collection and problems in respect of change of user in the case of the man living in an agricultural hereditament who decides to work somewhere else and who queue-jumps a housing list. Those are all administrative problems.
I want to turn to the other problem—the question of the wrong people. I turn quickly to the draft Peak District National Park Structure Plan, which is a well-thought-out comprehensive draft plan. It is in draft because the Peak Park Planning Authority wants to have full consultations with all the people concerned. The authority is fully aware of the problems of the people.
Chapter 9, paragraph 50 of the plan says that
existing dwellings in the Rural Zone are occupied by families actively engaged in farming, forestry or related activities. Planning permissions for new domestic accommodation or extensions or modifications to existing dwellings will, in appropriate circumstances, be determined on the basis of this policy
That is the first important consideration—that doing away with the tied cottage system in areas of beauty would make it extremely difficult to carry out that policy.
The second point concerns the point that I told the Minister I would mention. In chapter 10, paragraph 84, the plan mentions two areas. It says:
The growth of employment in the Bake-well Area and in the Hope Valley has tended to increase the daily transfer of labour Many 'white collar' workers live in the Park but commute to work outside (mainly to Sheffield and Chesterfield). On the other hand, many ' blue collar' workers live outside the Park but commute in".
I have never been able to find the definition of a blue collar worker. Although I have asked several people, I have received no satisfactory answer. I think it must include almost everyone who is

not a white collar worker. This problem occurs in rural areas in which outsiders buy houses, so that the local people cannot afford to live in those areas.
The third example is the balanced community, which we all want. Paragraph 15 in chapter 10 of the plan states that the aim is to maintain a balanced community. Nobody would wish to prevent people from living in areas of natural beauty, but we cannot continue to build in those areas and at the same time retain the sort of countryside we want. We must go back to the idea of the partnership which has been built up over hundreds of years between all people connected with the land. That must be continued so that our heritage is maintained.
It is because I can find in the consultative document no evidence that this environmental problem has been considered that I ask the Under-Secretary of State—in whom, having known the office in which he was trained, I have confidence—to assure us that he will tell his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the damage that this system is likely to cause to the environment.

2.2 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Our insistence since taking office as a Government that we intend to keep our promise to end the tied cottage system in agriculture, coupled with the announcement in the Queen's Speech of a Bill this Session, has predictably provoked considerable debate. I therefore particularly welcome the temperate and constructive tone underlying the remarks tonight of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant).
I hope, however, that what I am about to say will demonstrate that we are not proceeding with the legislation without regard to its implications for both sides of the agriculture industry, local authorities and those who are interested in the proper planning of the use of the country's resources. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the preservation and enhancement of the countryside and the provision of the requisite amenities and facilities for enjoyment and relaxation by the general public. I appreciate the arguments which he has put forward and I


pay tribute to the co-operation shown in the Peak district by the local authorities and the planning board.
I want to deal first with an issue about which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding. It concerns whether there are circumstances in which it is essential for a farm worker to live on the job. It is all too easy but not too helpful to come to a general conclusion based on extreme cases. We are examining very closely the evidence submitted in response to the consultative document and considering how best we can safeguard the genuine needs of agriculture while achieving the overriding aim of separating farm workers' rights and obligations as tenants on the one hand and as employees on the other.
As the consultative document indicates, there are two basic facts which have to be borne in mind. First, if application of a Rent Act code were to prove the best means of affording security to farm workers, the availability of suitable alternative accommodation would be the chief ground upon which a farmer could regain possession of a cottage.
Secondly, the industry has made a notable contribution to housing its own work force but at the same time local authorities are at present called upon to rehouse a considerable number of farm workers or ex-farm workers leaving tied cottages each year, frequently under the disturbing threat of court proceedings. The question here is to what extent and how local authorities should in future assist towards housing farm workers and ex-farm workers.
We are grateful to those who tackled this question during the course of consultations, even if their answers did not unanimously point towards a universally-agreed answer. We ourselves are studying it with the utmost care. It would certainly be rash for me to speculate prematurely on how it might best be resolved, and I have no intention of doing so. But I should like to believe that, by posing the question in the first place, and by making it clear now that it is well in our minds, many current misunderstandings about our pledge to end the agricutural tied cottage system could be removed.
The second matter which I want to tackle is the concern expressed by the hon. Member about the planning implications of the proposed legislation. I have been dealing up till now with an aspect of the legislation which is bound to affect farmers, farm workers and local authorities throughout England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman, however, laid considerable stress on a further aspect which is of particular interest in his constituency, namely, the planning implications. He emphasised his point by referring to the draft Peak Park Structure Plan, which if approved by the Secretary of State will provide a strategy for the development or other use of land in the park.
Without wanting to anticipate my right hon. Friend's ultimate decision, I can understand the case for maintaining or creating a balanced community, and I see no reason why ending the tied cottage system should jeopardise that aim. There is, admittedly, one possible area of conflict between planning considerations and the legislation which we envisage, though I would hope that it is more apparent than real.
It is indeed the case that many rural authorities in their planning capacity have long recognised the need to prevent development from marring the countryside or from taking place in unsuitable areas, while at the same time acknowledging the need for the agriculture industry to have its work force housed.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: When a farmer finds that a worker in a tied cottage is leaving, is there not a danger that he will be tempted to allow outsiders to occupy it because the return would be much greater? That would take it out of the tied cottage system to the detriment of any livestock system that the farmer was operating.

Mr. Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me to anticipate the forthcoming legislation, but we have the aspect he has raised very much in mind.
To meet both those objectives, these authorities have frequently attached to a planning permission for a new dwelling the condition that it shall be occupied only by a person employed in agriculture. Some of the more modern tied cottages


undoubtedly have attached to their occupation a condition of this kind, which could, if unaltered, conflict with the objective of the legislation we intend to introduce.
It would not be satisfactory to accord protection to farm workers only to find that if they chose to leave agriculture their security might be vitiated by the type of planning permission attached to their home. But the precise means of resolving the potential conflict must not mean that sensible planning has to be abandoned. Where there has been a good case hitherto for halting the spread of building in the countryside, it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if dismantling the tied cottage system led to a reversal of policy.
Although it is here again too early for me to say precisely how we shall deal with this, there are two factors which I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind. First, I have already mentioned the part at present being played by local authorities in housing farm workers and former farm workers, and the way in which a future réle might be shaped. I see no reason why whatever part local authorities play in housing former farm workers should prejudice proper planning. Secondly, I am encouraged by the existence of agricultural use planning conditions, not because of their aptness in any particular case but rather because they demonstrate that local authorities in their planning capacity are already aware of and responding to the special needs of the agriculture industry.
The hon. Member was also concerned lest the end of the tied cottage system could lead to farm cottages passing out of agriculture irrevocably because of sale to commuters or to owners of second homes. There has been over the past few months a considerable amount of loose speculation on the chances of this taking place. This presupposes in advance of our settling legislative proposals that the agriculture industry will no longer either want or be able to play any significant part in providing accommodation for farm workers and will thus be under an incentive to sell off existing stock as and when it can do so. I have every expectation that in the event fears of this kind will prove unfounded, and

my hope at this stage is that the dangers of self-fulfilling prophecy can be avoided.
It is hardly fair to the agriculture industry itself to jump to the conclusion that, because farm workers are to gain at long last a security so long denied to them, farm cottages will be disposed of to outsiders with almost indecent haste. In the meantime, the hon. Member can be sure that I have taken careful note of his concern. He will, I am certain, agree that it can best be met by our making every effort to work to the guidelines we have already set ourselves in the consultative document. In particular we are aiming at a scheme which can, whatever eventually occurs, command the acceptance and the confidence of both sides of the agriculture industry.
Finally, let me turn to an anxiety which the hon. Member put forward in all sincerity—the spur which our proposed legislation might, as he fears, apply to the decline in the agricultural labour force. As far as existing farm workers are concerned, there seem to be few enough grounds for fears of a massive exodus. Vociferous opponents of our policy have stressed to me the unique working relationships which exist in agriculture and the need for these to be maintained. If our legislation can provide farm workers with a sense of security which they have hitherto lacked, surely their attachment to agriculture is likely to deepen rather than become loosened.
It may well be, of course, that some farm workers, as at present, may choose or may by circumstances be compelled to quit agriculture either temporarily or permanently. The difference, however, will be that they will be able to change their job without the worry of losing a roof over their heads. Legislation will certainly not be drafted so as to encourage farm workers to leave the industry in greater numbers than takes place already.
Reg Bottini, in a Press notice issued today, tells us that
Some 300,000 farmworkers have left the land since the War—mostly from choice—opting for better wages and conditions.

Mr. Le Marchant: I thought that the letter written by Mr. Bottini was ably answered by the cowman in The Times on Monday. Living at 1,000 ft.—and I was in my constituency only 12 hours


ago—may I say that in present conditions, if cottages there, at a height of 1,000 ft., were to go out of farm occupation, it would be physically impossible, as it was last weekend, and almost impossible now, to gain access from villages below.

Mr. Armstrong: If circumstances arise in which a farm worker wishes to work elsewhere, he will not want to live in a remote place, so that there is a balance that can be achieved. Reg Bottini went on to say:
Bitter experience of the tied cottage has driven many of them away—never to return to agriculture.
As for new recruits, I should have thought that the prospect of secure housing would be an enticement into agriculture rather than a disincentive. Indeed, one of the points on which we sought comments in the consultative document was the need for farm workers to spend a qualifying period linked in some way to service in agriculture before becoming eligible for full protection.
My conclusion from the broad consensus is that recruitment is unlikely to be impaired and may even be strengthened by ending the tied cottage system.
I conclude by thanking the hon. Gentleman yet again for raising this topic in the way that he did. A prosperous farming industry is essential to the life of the countryside. It is a vital national resource producing food for the nation. It has an important part to play in conserving natural beauty and amenities. It is because I believe that the industry's long-term interests will be best served by giving those who work on the land and those whom we hope to attract to the industry the kind of security in their homes that the rest of us take for granted that I am able to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that his concern to preserve the best in our countryside will be helped rather than hindered by the legislation that we are now urgently preparing.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Two o'clock.